Most Popular Canon IS for birding ? (1 Viewer)

[edwincjones]

Is there any agreement with birders on their most popular Canon IS for birding?

From the astronomy side, at least from CloudyNights, the 10x42 seems to be the favorite,
with the 12x36 and 15x50s tied for a distant second/third.

For birding is there any agreement? Any sales figures available?

thanks,
edj

 

[Mike Crawley]

If I remember correctly I have only ever seen one person using image stabilised binoculars whilst birding. He has one functional hand.
Whilst volunteering for the RSPB at my local reserve (granted only one day per week) I haven’t seen anyone carrying I.S. binoculars.
From what I have read on this forum, they certainly have a place in the grand scheme of things. I look forward to seeing the consensus

 

[Ted Y.]

I use the 12x36mm model and I do not need better.
It has better results than any other 12x not stabilized model in the same price range (or a few hundred plus) I tried.

 

[Stu57]

I own both the 10x42 and 12x36 canons and have never looked back.

They are fantastic binoculars both in their own way.

The optics and views I get from the 10x42 canons are the best I have ever had and as for the weight and ergonomics this never been a problem for me.

The 12x36 canons give me a bit more reach and are amazing for both bird and astronomy lighter then the 10x42 canons and the battery life is brilliant.

I have never struggled with anything on my canons ie eyecups coatings weight etc etc.

Cheers Stu

 

[edwincjones]

How are the newer 10x, 12x,14x X 32mms fitting in for birding?

edj

 

[etudiant]

Is there any agreement with birders on their most popular Canon IS for birding?

From the astronomy side, at least from CloudyNights, the 10x42 seems to be the favorite,
with the 12x36 and 15x50s tied for a distant second/third.

For birding is there any agreement? Any sales figures available?

thanks,
edj

My NYC experience has been that the big x42 and x50 glasses are really rare, the x36 and x32 models are most popular, with the little 8x variants still outnumbering the big glass. All in, at most 2% of the birders I run into here carry IS binoculars. They have not become mainstream.
Separately, years ago the guide on a pelagic in Japan was using a heavily taped Canon 10x42 IS. He is still the only guide I've seen with them.

 

[yarrellii]

By most accounts the 10x42 L IS is a stellar device.
My experience is limited to the lower IS range: 8x20 IS, 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III

The 8x20 IS is surprising in that it's the size and weight of a very light 8x32 but it can outresolve any 8x32. However, there are two things that I find a bit limiting. First, I find the 6,6º FOV a bit on the narrow side for an everyday birding bino. And then, being an 8x20, eye position is crucial, so not as comfortable as an 8x30, for example.

The 12x36 IS III has been my most used bino for nearly 2 years now. It's so powerful, it's like carrying a tiny miniature scope (I mean the reach, not the size), so stable and the view is just like looking at an HD picture in terms of resolution (although the image quality is a bit soft and plagued by CA). Sizewise it's a bit bulky, but not terribly so, and the weight feels surprisingly well distributed, to it feels lighter than the 695 g (with batteries, 660 without). For some, a big drawback can be the close focus distance, which is around 6 meters (not close at all!!). However, the ability to resolve more detail than any other fellow birder using a handheld traditional binocular is just mindblowing.

The 10x30 IS II is somehow the sweet spot. It has nearly the same power as the 12x36, but in a more compact package which is lighter and, more importantly, has a "decent" close focus distance of around 3 m. In a sense, it solves the biggest drawbacks of the 12x36. It has a 6º FOV, which is not record breaking, but nothing to be ashamed of for a 10x (as a matter of fact, compare it with the 6,6º of the 8x20). I think this would be the sweet spot for birding.

There is a new 10x32 IS which I haven't tried, because while it solves a big issue with the old IS series, such as the need to constantly press the button, by some reviews it has not greatly improved the CA problem, and it has grown bulkier and heavier (a big minus in my book). It's now 780 g vs 600 g for the old 10x30 (both without batteries).

So, a 10x30 at 660 g is a bit on the heavy side, but then, there is a magical button that leaves any other 10x30/32 behind. FOV is average, but not terrible. Close focus is acceptable. What's not to like. Well, in fact I own both the 10x30 and 12x36 and favour the more "flawed" 12x36 because when going IS I want to make the most of it and having tested both side by side for months, I prefer to live with the drawbacks of the 12x36 but be able to enjoy its superior resolution power.

 

[Dennis Mau]

By most accounts the 10x42 L IS is a stellar device.
My experience is limited to the lower IS range: 8x20 IS, 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III

The 8x20 IS is surprising in that it's the size and weight of a very light 8x32 but it can outresolve any 8x32. However, there are two things that I find a bit limiting. First, I find the 6,6º FOV a bit on the narrow side for an everyday birding bino. And then, being an 8x20, eye position is crucial, so not as comfortable as an 8x30, for example.

The 12x36 IS III has been my most used bino for nearly 2 years now. It's so powerful, it's like carrying a tiny miniature scope (I mean the reach, not the size), so stable and the view is just like looking at an HD picture in terms of resolution (although the image quality is a bit soft and plagued by CA). Sizewise it's a bit bulky, but not terribly so, and the weight feels surprisingly well distributed, to it feels lighter than the 695 g (with batteries, 660 without). For some, a big drawback can be the close focus distance, which is around 6 meters (not close at all!!). However, the ability to resolve more detail than any other fellow birder using a handheld traditional binocular is just mindblowing.

The 10x30 IS II is somehow the sweet spot. It has nearly the same power as the 12x36, but in a more compact package which is lighter and, more importantly, has a "decent" close focus distance of around 3 m. In a sense, it solves the biggest drawbacks of the 12x36. It has a 6º FOV, which is not record breaking, but nothing to be ashamed of for a 10x (as a matter of fact, compare it with the 6,6º of the 8x20). I think this would be the sweet spot for birding.

There is a new 10x32 IS which I haven't tried, because while it solves a big issue with the old IS series, such as the need to constantly press the button, by some reviews it has not greatly improved the CA problem, and it has grown bulkier and heavier (a big minus in my book). It's now 780 g vs 600 g for the old 10x30 (both without batteries).

So, a 10x30 at 660 g is a bit on the heavy side, but then, there is a magical button that leaves any other 10x30/32 behind. FOV is average, but not terrible. Close focus is acceptable. What's not to like. Well, in fact I own both the 10x30 and 12x36 and favour the more "flawed" 12x36 because when going IS I want to make the most of it and having tested both side by side for months, I prefer to live with the drawbacks of the 12x36 but be able to enjoy its superior resolution power.

I have had pretty much tried all the Canon's and some of them twice, and I agree with what you said about seeing detail. You will see more detail with an IS binocular or a binocular on a tripod no doubt about it but the trouble with the Canon's is the majority of them including the 8x20 IS, 12x36 IS III, and 10x30 IS II are no better optically than a regular $200 to $300 binocular with the one exception being the Canon 10x42 IS-L and as Paultricounty said in his review it is about equal to a good upper mid-grade binocular like the Nikon HG or Zeiss Conquest HD.

What I found is if you are used to an alpha level binocular like the NL or SF and the superb view they offer, it is difficult to come down to the view through a $500 binocular like the Canon 10x30 IS II or 12x36 IS III even though it is steady. When I go from an NL to any of the Canon's even the best one the 10x42 IS-L you notice the difference in the optics, especially the size of the FOV and the transparency. The Canon 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III view just feels dead and lifeless compared to the eye candy you get through an alpha and as you said yourself the 12x36 IS III image is soft and plagued by CA.

I have come to the conclusion that even though the lack of shake in the Canons does allow you to see more detail, I would rather have a little shake, see less detail but have the beautiful view that the alpha level binoculars have. When I look at a bird, I don't care as much if he is rock steady, but I would rather see the bird with the vibrant colors, superb contrast and lack of CA that an alpha binocular gives you. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. Do you want a steady average view or a stunning, gorgeous view with a little shake? I will take the latter.

Then, if you do get the best of the Canon's the 10x42 IS-L you have to tolerate the lousy ergonomics with the terrible eye cups compared to a regular alpha binocular that is way more comfortable, lighter and smaller. The Canon 10x42 IS-L is like holding a small brick and forget about carrying it very far because of the weight. Then there is the long term durability issues of the Canon's and their poor warranty, coupled with the fact that you have to make sure you have enough fresh batteries with you to last through the day or however long you are birding.

The worst thing about the Canon IS binoculars is how they continually focus and refocus as you move closer to a bird and the optical artifacts as the IS system continually tries to compensate for movement and shake. I never enjoyed birding as much with the Canon's because even though the bird is steady, the bird is not as stunning and beautiful as through an alpha.

 

[Ted Y.]

The worst thing about the Canon IS binoculars is how they continually focus and refocus as you move closer to a bird

Continually focus and refocus? Canon IS binoculars? On what planet?
Do you used a secret protype doing refocus by itself? If yes, this is good news!!

the optical artifacts as the IS system continually tries to compensate for movement and shake

What optical artifacts?
Compensate for movement? What movement?
What are you talking about?
Or is just noise to confuse some readers?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Continually focus and refocus? Canon IS binoculars? On what planet?
Do you used a secret protype doing refocus by itself? If yes, this is good news!!


What optical artifacts?
Compensate for movement? What movement?
What are you talking about?
Or is just noise to confuse some readers?

I noticed the focus and refocusing or image shift/drift when I used the Canons, and Paltricounty did also when he started the thread "Premium Alpha vs Image stabilized thread".

Premium (Alpha) vs Image stabilized

Compared with Canon 10x42L IS I’ll put this right up front so nobody has to read the rest if they don’t want to. Nice glass, better than any of the other IS Canon’s I’ve tried previous. This is sharp glass. Optics are upper mid-grade or just below premium (alpha). I put them in the MHG, Zeiss...

www.birdforum.net

"There was some image drift or shift, annoying at times, but not a dealbreaker to anybody. Focusing is a little slow. One thing noticed by everyone was that when observing an object on a branch at distance, then moving up the branch it appears it’s out of focus for a second, then moving back down the branch, same thing. I believe or equate this to the image shift/drift and the IS function delay. Some older observers didn’t like it. I got used to it."

I and many other people have observed optical artifacts in the Canon IS binoculars, and it bothers some people more than others where the IS system seems to create image shift when it stabilizes the image or the focus softens when the IS is engaged. The newer Canons are improved in this area, but I still saw it in the recent pair of Canon 10x42 IS-L I had.

Also, in Ken Rockwell's excellent review of the Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi binoculars, he talks about the softening of the image in Canon IS binoculars.

Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi

I found that the Canons get softer when there IS is ON. Even though much less sharp than Leicas or good Nikon's, the Canons allowed me to read handwriting 75 feet (25 m) away because of their stabilized image. Other binoculars impressed me with their sharpness, but since their images wiggle even in my rock-steady grip, I couldn't actually read the fine details.

These Fujinons impressed me because they have stabilization as well as the sharpness of the other high-end non-stabilized binoculars. They are the best of both worlds. They don't get softer with stabilization ON.

These Fujinons use solid-glass shifting prisms to stabilize the image. Canon uses mushy fluid-filled wet-bag prisms, which is why I suspect the Canons get softer with IS active. With IS, the Canons often have a constant dithering of the edges; artifacts of the interaction of the IS system with the motions it's attempting to counter. The Fujinons have none of these problems and lock down a sharp, rock-stable image. The Canons fade in and out of sharpness.

I'd rather a Canon IS over Leica for utility (Leica still wins at mechanical build quality), and I bought (whoops, asked Santa to get me) these Fujinons because of their greater sharpness and contrast over the Canons.

Other folks have emailed me that they prefer the Canons, and I'm a little confused at that. I've never seen these Fujinons at retail. I only saw them at an industry trade show, where I also was able to compare them directly to the Canons and Leicas and Nikon's and everything else. The differences are obvious and repeatable. The Canons get soft with the IS on; they are OK with it off, but who cares how sharp they are with IS off? With further questioning of these Internet reports, it seems none of them had ever actually seen these Fujinons. I only saw them at a huge industry trade show where every vendor brought everything in their catalogs. You may be able to find the Nikon Stabileyes, which seem identical, at retail for comparison against the Canons.

I tried the Canons again (18x50). The Canons are sharp with the IS off, but turning IS on softens the image as the mush-prisms do their work. The stabilized images softly fade in and out of sharpness as Canon's wet bag prisms wiggle around.

The Fujinons use sold glass prisms in rotating gimbals, so no quality is lost as they deflect to counter motion. The Fujinons are as sharp with IS on or off; their prisms always have parallel sides. The Canons' wet bags are deflected from parallel (made trapezoidal) to counter motion as it happens. Look for yourself: the Canons fade in and out of sharpness; it's not your imagination. The Fujinons stay sharp. Who cares how sharp they are with IS off? I bought these to use with IS ON.

Also, Scopeviews review of the Canon 12x36 IS III talks about the focus shift.

Canon 12x36 IS Binoculars Review

scopeviews.co.uk

"However, compared to the smaller model, the 12x36s take longer to settle after hitting the button. Even when they have settled down, here are those weird artifacts in the view that I had experienced with the 18x50s and not found with the 10x30s. In particular, I found a cyclic shift in focus disturbing: over the course of a few seconds, the focus would blur out and then sharpen again. The 12x36s didn’t take well to being panned either, making a chattering noise and giving a strange jerkiness to the edges of the view."

 

[edwincjones]

Thank you all for your replies. As noted in my sig I have the Fujinon 14x40IS and the Canon 12x36 and would like to get another IS but cannot find THE ONE.
The C 10x42 has been considered but too close, I am afraid, to the big fuji and an older model. I will recponsider when a newer model is available but may be a long wait.
In spite of the wide appeal of the 12x36s I have never bonded with them.
I long for a smaller IS with the egonomics, size, FOV and quality of non IS binos but just not available - YET.

edj

 

[AlanFrench]

After spending some time with the 10x30 IS, which we had given my father-in-law, my wife gave me a pair of 12x36 IS II, which I used for about 16 years. I thought it was a good choice for birding, with the 12 power providing a good advantage over my previous 7x42s. My one complaint was the poor close focus, so I replaced with them a pair of the newer 12x32 IS several years ago. I think those are perfect for birding.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Hermann]

By most accounts the 10x42 L IS is a stellar device.

Yes, it is. The optics are alpha quality, even without the stabilizer. With the stabilizer on it runs circles around any other 10x binocular: You simply get a lot more detail on the bird. Unfortunately it's a bit heavy in many situations, and the ergonomics aren't really brilliant. Not as bad as many people here make them, but the ergonomics take some time to get used to.

The 8x20 IS is surprising in that it's the size and weight of a very light 8x32 but it can outresolve any 8x32. However, there are two things that I find a bit limiting. First, I find the 6,6º FOV a bit on the narrow side for an everyday birding bino. And then, being an 8x20, eye position is crucial, so not as comfortable as an 8x30, for example.

I fully agree with your assessment. Yes, it does outresolve any conventional 8x32. Easily. Another strong point is its performance when viewing against the light - almost NO veiling glare. A heck of a lot better than some so-called alphas. I carry mine a lot when I'm in town or visiting friends and relatives and don't expect to do any serious birding for hours on end.

The 12x36 IS III has been my most used bino for nearly 2 years now. It's so powerful, it's like carrying a tiny miniature scope (I mean the reach, not the size), so stable and the view is just like looking at an HD picture in terms of resolution (although the image quality is a bit soft and plagued by CA). Sizewise it's a bit bulky, but not terribly so, and the weight feels surprisingly well distributed, to it feels lighter than the 695 g (with batteries, 660 without). For some, a big drawback can be the close focus distance, which is around 6 meters (not close at all!!). However, the ability to resolve more detail than any other fellow birder using a handheld traditional binocular is just mindblowing.

The 10x30 IS II is somehow the sweet spot. It has nearly the same power as the 12x36, but in a more compact package which is lighter and, more importantly, has a "decent" close focus distance of around 3 m. In a sense, it solves the biggest drawbacks of the 12x36. It has a 6º FOV, which is not record breaking, but nothing to be ashamed of for a 10x (as a matter of fact, compare it with the 6,6º of the 8x20). I think this would be the sweet spot for birding.

I find the depth of field is too narrow with any 12x binocular, at least for general viewing. I'm seriously considering getting a 10x30 myself, having tried one in the field a couple of times, as a kind of lightweight alternative to the 10x42 IS.

There is a new 10x32 IS which I haven't tried, because while it solves a big issue with the old IS series, such as the need to constantly press the button, by some reviews it has not greatly improved the CA problem, and it has grown bulkier and heavier (a big minus in my book). It's now 780 g vs 600 g for the old 10x30 (both without batteries).

I found the 10x32 has too much CA, especially considering the price.

Hermann

 

[yarrellii]

When I look at a bird, I don't care as much if he is rock steady, but I would rather see the bird with the vibrant colors, superb contrast and lack of CA that an alpha binocular gives you. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. Do you want a steady average view or a stunning, gorgeous view with a little shake? I will take the latter.

Well, when I'm birding for me it boils down to, first and foremost, being able to identify the bird and see the details on its plumage and other features. Two examples from last week. We got the Spring migration already going around here.

A couple of days ago I was birding as the Sun had just set when a warbler flashed by. You know, warblers tend to be pretty restless, but I could make out its colour and shape... I thought it was a Dartford warbler (Curruca undata), but then I had the chance to enjoy a stabilized image where the telling features of the bird became apparent, I was even able to record a small video with my smartphone through the Canon (it is unbeatable for this; not the best way of recording, but more than enough for keeping a record of IDs). It was not a Dartford, but a Western Subalpine Warbler (Curruca iberiae), which is pretty rare around here this time of the year, it is at least one month earlier than usual. I uploaded the sight to eBird and the area supervisor wrote me to verify the sighting (as he usually does with rare sights). I could confidently say it was a Subalpine warbler, as I was able to see it in detail... Yes, with a pretty lousy image quality, but I was able to tell.



Some days earlier, I saw the first Western Yellow Wagtail of the year. The most common subspecies is the Motacilla flava iberiae, but we also get a few M. f. cinereocapilla as well as other rare visitors.



At first sight I could barely see the white "eyebrow", so I was excited to have spotted a cinereocapilla, because the eyebrow is a telling feature of the iberiae subspecies, but thanks to the stabilized 12x I was able to tell. The eyebrow was faint, but it was there (maybe even from a hybrid).

I could not have made a positive ID of the above with any of my other handheld "conventional" binoculars.
For me it is as simple as that. I went home with the great feeling of having "met" and being able to "ID" both birds. Yes, I'm aware that there's a lot more to resolution when it comes to ID, because there are may features, the "jizz", etc. But IS makes it so much simple. On the cheaper Canons like mine... yes, the image has tons of CA, and I can only agree with you that out of the 700-ish €/$ for the 12x36 IS III, you get a pretty lousy 200 € binocular (which is not even waterproof and has awful ergonomics)... and then you get 500 € of electronic guts which, in my case, after a pretty steep learning curve is simply worth it.

The worst thing about the Canon IS binoculars is how they continually focus and refocus as you move closer to a bird and the optical artifacts as the IS system continually tries to compensate for movement and shake.

I've had the 8x20 IS, 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III and I haven't felt any focus and refocus. As a matter of fact, before buying my first IS binoculars I was frightened by the stories of wandering focus, artifacts and terrible lag time, but on all my binoculars IS action is almost instantaneous. It is one of the areas that has surprised me the more (for good).

I never enjoyed birding as much with the Canon's because even though the bird is steady, the bird is not as stunning and beautiful as through an alpha.

Again, while I can understand the almost addictive nature of a stunning view, such as the central sharpness and brightness of the 8x30 Habicht, the surreal beauty of a quality 7x42 like the Ultravid HD or the FL... there are moments, like during migration season where everyday is like an unexpected gift where you don't know what the parcel might contain... when the most important achievement of a device to help you see closer what is far away is as simple as that, help you see closer what is far away. I'm aware of the many drawbacks, but the ugly truth is that I have higher chances of ID (and learning by observing the features of a bird) with an IS.

 

[yarrellii]

I'm seriously considering getting a 10x30 myself, having tried one in the field a couple of times, as a kind of lightweight alternative to the 10x42 IS.

Such a pity, I've just sold mine!

 

[AlanFrench]

The 8x20 IS is surprisingly nice. I made an exception to my "Try before you buy rule" when I ran into a nice used pair at a good price. It was a good decision. I prefer the 12x32, but when we're just walking to be out and about, it's nice to have a small, lighter option. I hate not have binoculars along when we run into something interesting.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Dennis Mau]

Well, when I'm birding for me it boils down to, first and foremost, being able to identify the bird and see the details on its plumage and other features. Two examples from last week. We got the Spring migration already going around here.

A couple of days ago I was birding as the Sun had just set when a warbler flashed by. You know, warblers tend to be pretty restless, but I could make out its colour and shape... I thought it was a Dartford warbler (Curruca undata), but then I had the chance to enjoy a stabilized image where the telling features of the bird became apparent, I was even able to record a small video with my smartphone through the Canon (it is unbeatable for this; not the best way of recording, but more than enough for keeping a record of IDs). It was not a Dartford, but a Western Subalpine Warbler (Curruca iberiae), which is pretty rare around here this time of the year, it is at least one month earlier than usual. I uploaded the sight to eBird and the area supervisor wrote me to verify the sighting (as he usually does with rare sights). I could confidently say it was a Subalpine warbler, as I was able to see it in detail... Yes, with a pretty lousy image quality, but I was able to tell.

View attachment 1499881

Some days earlier, I saw the first Western Yellow Wagtail of the year. The most common subspecies is the Motacilla flava iberiae, but we also get a few M. f. cinereocapilla as well as other rare visitors.

View attachment 1499880

At first sight I could barely see the white "eyebrow", so I was excited to have spotted a cinereocapilla, because the eyebrow is a telling feature of the iberiae subspecies, but thanks to the stabilized 12x I was able to tell. The eyebrow was faint, but it was there (maybe even from a hybrid).

I could not have made a positive ID of the above with any of my other handheld "conventional" binoculars.
For me it is as simple as that. I went home with the great feeling of having "met" and being able to "ID" both birds. Yes, I'm aware that there's a lot more to resolution when it comes to ID, because there are may features, the "jizz", etc. But IS makes it so much simple. On the cheaper Canons like mine... yes, the image has tons of CA, and I can only agree with you that out of the 700-ish €/$ for the 12x36 IS III, you get a pretty lousy 200 € binocular (which is not even waterproof and has awful ergonomics)... and then you get 500 € of electronic guts which, in my case, after a pretty steep learning curve is simply worth it.



I've had the 8x20 IS, 10x30 IS II and 12x36 IS III and I haven't felt any focus and refocus. As a matter of fact, before buying my first IS binoculars I was frightened by the stories of wandering focus, artifacts and terrible lag time, but on all my binoculars IS action is almost instantaneous. It is one of the areas that has surprised me the more (for good).



Again, while I can understand the almost addictive nature of a stunning view, such as the central sharpness and brightness of the 8x30 Habicht, the surreal beauty of a quality 7x42 like the Ultravid HD or the FL... there are moments, like during migration season where everyday is like an unexpected gift where you don't know what the parcel might contain... when the most important achievement of a device to help you see closer what is far away is as simple as that, help you see closer what is far away. I'm aware of the many drawbacks, but the ugly truth is that I have higher chances of ID (and learning by observing the features of a bird) with an IS.

Nice Wagtail pictures. That is a beautiful bird and rare! Do you ever feel handicapped with the Canon 12x36 IS III because it has less DOF than lower magnification binoculars like Herman mentioned, or does the 12x make up for it in detail? Do you see a lot more detail with 12x36 IS III versus the 10x30 IS II?

 

[yarrellii]

Do you ever feel handicapped with the Canon 12x36 IS III because it has less DOF than lower magnification binoculars like Herman mentioned, or does the 12x make up for it in detail?

As a matter of fact, I've never given a lot of thought to that. It is a higher magnification, so DOF is shallower, but never found it to be distracting, let alone a handicap. I'm a "7x or 8x kind of person", so I do notice a perceptible decrease in DOF going from 7x or 8x to 10x, I find myself focusing a lot more. But from 10x to 12x not that much, it's like if I was already on the "high power boat", and the behaviour is similar. So, yes, I notice a difference between a lower power, but only what is to be expected, and in no way does it hinder the use. The resolution of the 12x always leaves me in awe, always. It's like carrying a small scope. Just yesterday I was birding with two friends, both had very nice 8x42, we were looking for passerines, and all the time I could make out details that simply escaped them. One of them was unaware that I had a much higher power binocular and kept saying "You have an amazing eyesight!". For me that's what it is all about, a 12 IS shows so much more. And then, the 12x36 IS III are not terribly heavy for the magnification.

Do you see a lot more detail with 12x36 IS III versus the 10x30 IS II?

I see a little more detail, enough to be relevant. After one year of intensive use of the 12x36 I bought the 10x30 because it "solves" several of my biggest problems, namely short focus and size/weight. However, after using and comparing them side by side for months, I settled on the 12x because I think the make the most of IS. I could have lived happily with the 10x, but given that I have excellent lower magnification binoculars, I thought that the best complement was a 12x. Say, 7-8 and 12x.

In fact, as I wrote somewhere around here, I find the 10x30 to be a more "perfect allrounder", a more polished and well-rounded (less flawed) binocular.

 

[Sancho]

My most used Bino is now Canon IS 8x20. Small, light, and IS advantages need no trumpeting. The best views I've ever had were with IS 10x42, but the weight issue and arthritis made it no longer useable..,..I do wish Canon would bring out a light, user-friendly IS 8x32. The same glass as in the IS 8x20 would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Dennis Mau]

As a matter of fact, I've never given a lot of thought to that. It is a higher magnification, so DOF is shallower, but never found it to be distracting, let alone a handicap. I'm a "7x or 8x kind of person", so I do notice a perceptible decrease in DOF going from 7x or 8x to 10x, I find myself focusing a lot more. But from 10x to 12x not that much, it's like if I was already on the "high power boat", and the behaviour is similar. So, yes, I notice a difference between a lower power, but only what is to be expected, and in no way does it hinder the use. The resolution of the 12x always leaves me in awe, always. It's like carrying a small scope. Just yesterday I was birding with two friends, both had very nice 8x42, we were looking for passerines, and all the time I could make out details that simply escaped them. One of them was unaware that I had a much higher power binocular and kept saying "You have an amazing eyesight!". For me that's what it is all about, a 12 IS shows so much more. And then, the 12x36 IS III are not terribly heavy for the magnification.


I see a little more detail, enough to be relevant. After one year of intensive use of the 12x36 I bought the 10x30 because it "solves" several of my biggest problems, namely short focus and size/weight. However, after using and comparing them side by side for months, I settled on the 12x because I think the make the most of IS. I could have lived happily with the 10x, but given that I have excellent lower magnification binoculars, I thought that the best complement was a 12x. Say, 7-8 and 12x.

In fact, as I wrote somewhere around here, I find the 10x30 to be a more "perfect allrounder", a more polished and well-rounded (less flawed) binocular.

Once you are on the bird the difference in DOF probably doesn't make too much difference as you say. The 60 degree AFOV of the Canon 12x36 IS III is really pretty good. I know what you mean about going from 10x to 12x. It is a bigger jump in magnification than you might think it is, and it makes a big difference is seeing detail. I used a Canon 12x36 IS III on the night sky once, it really excelled at that. It gave me some of the best views of the moon I have ever seen through a binocular. You have almost talked me into trying a Canon IS again for the detail. Let's see, I have the NL 8x32 and NL 10x42, so I would probably try 12x36 IS III.