Canon10x42 L is WP Image Stabilized Binoculars

Summary:The top two reviews with the most helpful votes have covered these binoculars so well, I will keep my review shorter and offer a different emphasis. These Canons were compared to the flagships from Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss, and Nikon. With the IS system turned off, the views were on par or just below the other four. With IS turned on, there was no comparison. IS is the real deal! Once you use it (and can deal with the weight), you can't go back.Background:Some months back, I took up amateur astronomy as a hobby. I was told by veterans to start with binoculars and then progress to a telescope. Now that I have more experience, you should buy both. They are different tools for stargazing much like a pickup truck and a compact sedan are great for different activities.In binoculars for astronomy, there are two camps: low power or high power magnification. Low power generally means 7x-10x and high power means 15x-30x. Aperture ranges from 35mm at a minimum up to 100mm - but anything larger than 42 or 50 mm gets very heavy to hold steady. So, a mount becomes necessary which kills the convenience factor. I'm in the low power camp for binoculars. I use them for sweeping the sky with a wide field of view and large exit pupils. I also think the biggest advantage over a telescopes is their portability, and how fast they are to use for a quick look. Thus, hand-held size and low power are key qualities. I prefer 10x over 7x because that extra magnification is very noticeable, but it still retains a good field of view.The comparison test:Since I'm a casual observer, I only knew important things like chromatic aberration (CA), contrast, sharpness, and brightness. I tested this pair with 5 other people who knew more about quality optics, and one person who knew nothing about them - 7 people total. In our group, we had the alpha brands (Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski) to use as a benchmark. They were the Swarovski 10x42 EL, Nikon 10x42 EDG, Leica 10x42 Ultravid HD, and the Zeiss Victory 10x42. To make it short, all four of these gave superb views with such crispness and clarity, we doubted that the Canons could live up to their level because the price difference was nearly $2,000. For more in-depth analysis, these models have many reviews on the Internet. They are the best to many people for a reason.When the group held the Canon, you could tell their bulky size and weight were a huge negative mark against them. That being said, only two people (particularly my uncle, an avid birder and a lover of Swarovskis) thought their image quality was the same as the benchmark pairs with the IS turned off. We then took turns looking at some stars with the IS turned on. Everyone else gasped.My uncle was in disbelief. No one could have predicted how important a still(er) image could be at 10x. Somehow, sharpness, colors, and details emerged that weren't there before in the benchmark pairs. Still, he gave the slightest edge to the Swarovskis because sweeping the binoculars with IS turned on introduced very tiny artificats. Nonetheless, if you swept the night sky with the IS turned off, locked onto a target, and then clicked the IS button on, the views became close to perfect. This inability to sweep the sky with IS on wasn't a big deal to me. Locking on objects and then clicking became second nature eventually. In the end, I only knew this as a casual observer: I couldn't hold the other pairs, which were considerably lighter, without the image bouncing around. With these, one button click solved the problem. My little sister, the neophyte of the group, agreed with me. She knew nothing about glass performance. Yet, she admitted the view of the Pleiades with IS on versus the others were incomparable.My uncle still preferred his Swarovskis because he had miraculously still hands so the IS wasn't important to him at these magnifications. In addition, because of his age, the weight of these binoculars was too much with his neck craned up at the constellations. Everyone else younger than him could hold these just fine, and they gave the Canons the highest score.Canon 10x42 vs the 15x50/18x50:Before I decided to keep these, I also acquired the Canon 15x50 and 18x50 IS binoculars. The extra magnification was lovely, however, I still preferred the 10x42. Here's why: the L lens gave brighter, sharper, and extremely color-accurate views versus the non L lens glass. Even more, the field of view was greater in these (a big reason why I bought binoculars for astronomy in the first place). The exit pupil was larger too which my eyes can take advantage of in darkness. Lastly, the IS system worked better for the 10x (the shakes were more noticeable in the higher powered models); and these were much lighter than the 15x and 18x in spite of their waterproofing (which the others lack). I may have bought the 15x were it not for my telescope and my need to use the 10x for terrestrial purposes and at football games. Strangely, I did not notice much of a difference with the extra 8mm of aperture. I think the better IS in the 10x42 cancelled out this advantage.Miscellaneous:Everyone has complained about the objective lens caps. I bought two B+W 52mm clear filters (007M) as added protection and the supplied caps click and stay on these filters much better than without them. The added plus is that it's easier to clean the binoculars. In case you mess up, you haven't scratched the costly lenses. I also love that you can dunk these in a bucket of water for better cleaning.Conclusion:The optics with the L lenses place these in the same category as the benchmarks. With the IS turned on, they are the best 10x despite them being much cheaper. Were it not for their weight and bulkiness, I'm sure these would be more popular. Also, Canon's support is subpar versus Swarovski and company. Binoculars are a very small segment of their business. Therefore, if something were to go wrong with the IS system, the repairs would be costly. This likely scares birders who are used to owning their quality binoculars for decades.I don't expect these to last as long as Leicas. If the IS becomes defective after the 3-year warranty expires, I still have very high quality, although heavy, binoculars. Since I can handle the weight and their ergonomics, the L lens and the IS combined make these a keeper for me. A low-power astronomy binocular fan that does not have still hands cannot buy a better 10x stargazing instrument than these pair.

Second revision after 1.5 years of use and on pelagic birding trip: No longer a pain in the neck and comfortable in my hands. Now the 44 oz. (versus 24 oz. of previous binoculars) feels normal. VIEWS ARE STILL FANTASTIC. Very useful in all birding conditions (from rain forest to open seas, and especially in windy conditions). With image stabilization on, no one will have a better view through binoculars. I’d pay several hundred dollars for an image-stabilized spotting scope if someone made one—seems silly since scopes are on tripods, but I typically use mine at the windy coast where shaking is often annoying.Revised one year after purchase: I raised the rating from 4 to 5 stars since going on a birding trip in the tropics. I also gave up the binocular harness as too annoying (too many straps and too elastic) and used the binocular strap provided by Canon—hence the 44 oz pain in the neck when combined with a camera and a satchel across a shoulder. BUT WOW, when seeing so many new and rarely seen birds, I made full use of the 90-100% stability compared to no image stabilization, which provided viewing opportunities previously afforded only through the guide’s spotting scope. Yes, previously on birding trips I’d always been first in line at the spotting scope, but on this trip anything within about 100’ was just fine through the binoculars WITH THE IMAGE STABILIZATION ON. Of course this is with top quality glass and 10x (some folks used 8x, but they didn’t even bother looking at the distant birds that were well within the range I had). After about 2 weeks of constant use on the trip, the neck pain diminished and the hefty binoculars felt comfortable in my hands. Normally I only use the image stabiliation a few seconds at a time, about a total of a minute per hour of active birding, but on this trip I used it more frequently and longer since I wanted to carefully study and savor the birds, but there is still plenty of AA battery left—I assume (battery life isn’t an issue, but unfortunately I don’t know how to predict when they will give out, so I took along a spare pair of batteries). Not only were the binoculars great in the dense rainforest, but they were also outstanding on big and small boats or after hurrying to see a bird that might soon fly away. I haven’t tried them on a pelagic trip, but I expect they would be even more useful there, even though complete image stabilization would be unlikely. So if someone tells you they looked through them once and weren’t impressed (as my guide did), take it with a grain of salt. See my original review (unchanged except the rating of 4 going to 5) below:Original unchanged review: This is a long review since it’s very difficult to find much about image-stabilized binoculars for serious birding. BOTTOM LINE: because of the image stabilization, the very high optical quality, and the reasonably high magnification (10x) no birder will have a better binocular view. But there are two big considerations: 1) extra cost and 2) heavy and ergonomically challenging handling. I believe the latter issue is why these are difficult to find to try out or even to see reviewed in birding circles. But image stabilization revolutionized bird photography, and once the kinks get worked out (mainly weight and bulk) it should revolutionize birding binoculars. Binocular manufacturers have reached the point of diminishing returns on optical quality, leaving wide-open much potential for improvement using image stabilization.Many years ago I had a binocular epiphany. At a roadside pull-off in Yellowstone National Park, I saw a man using 8x compact binoculars on a tripod to view a distant grizzly bear. Overcoming my surprise over tiny binoculars on a tripod, I was amazed that the view through his little binoculars was at least as good as what I had with my larger 10x binoculars. Since then, I have been acutely aware of how much vision is improved when there is complete stability. I’ve come to realize that few birders have looked through their binoculars with complete stability (e.g., resting them on a flat surface and not touching them at all). The view is spectacular, and I’d say it’s worth a couple of extra powers of magnification and quite a bit more money.Ever since then, I’ve been wondering what it would be like to have image-stabilized binoculars, but reviews for and by serious birders are very hard to find—hence this review. There are several brands available (but very hard to find to test), but since none seem to cost less than $700 for binoculars that would otherwise go for less than $200 (based on the descriptions), I figure $500 is for the image stabilization feature. These Canon 10x42s are pretty much the only top quality ones out there (outstanding glass, waterproof [inadvertently tested and confirmed], fairly close focus, etc.). Almost every review says they’re heavy (yes, 42g vs 23g for Eagle Optics 10x42 Ranger ED binoculars—my previous standard). But they all say that the view is spectacular, especially for viewing the night sky. Another serious issue for me from the reviews was the limited warranty and high cost of repairing the image-stabilization feature. With all of this in mind, I decided to take a chance and get a pair 6 months ago and am ready to render an opinion for other serious birders.Not only are they heavy, requiring the use of a harness rather than a simple strap, but more importantly they are bulky and have a different (clumsy) feel in the hand. The housing for the two AA batteries for the image-stabilizer fills the gap between the two barrels, just where I’d like my thumbs to go. On the plus side, there’s also a screw hole to readily attach a tripod (but of all binoculars, why would you want to?). Also the objective lenses are perilously exposed in these distinctively shaped binoculars. (This is easily, but annoyingly, corrected by buying two UV filters [52mm threads] and two ¾” wide sunshades [also 52mm threads], totaling about $40. Then throw away the rubber objective covers [which, as everyone says don’t fit anyway] and the binocular case [which all birders already do]).Now to the image stabilization, which is operated by a button using the right middle finger. YES, IT WORKS, removing most of the shake, often giving glorious total image stability. The shake reduction seems comparable to that of image-stabilized DSLR cameras.WITH EXPERIENCE, FIELD USE IS GREAT. After several months of serious birding in a variety of conditions, my hands have finally adapted to the new feel and the weight. The image quality is indeed superb, and all other features besides weight and grip are fine (e.g., eye relief for eyeglasses, close focus, focusing knob, field of view). Since I only use the image stabilization feature for a few seconds at a time and for only a few times per hour of birding, I’m still way below the listed 2-8 hours of battery life (depending on AA battery type and temperature). It’s been great for 1) getting ideal looks at quality birds, 2) warblers high in trees, especially when I’m tired and have shaky arms, 3) waiting for birds to pop out from behind vegetation (here, I might keep the image-stabilizer on for up to 10-20 seconds), 4) coastal birding in strong wind (times when image-stabilizers would be useful for tripod-mounted scopes), and 5) eking out the last bit of magnification for identifying birds almost too distant for regular 10x binoculars (and definitely out of range for regular 8x). The image-stabilization is also useful for following birds in flight. Surprisingly, one-handed use is not just possible, but is actually quite good despite the size and shape of these “big boys.”So, because I knew about the value of a stable image, I took a chance. The binoculars have been rewarding. It has taken adjustment, perhaps not unlike that of bird photographers deciding to switch from an easily portable point-and-shoot high-zoom camera to a bulky 400mm DSLR camera. Anyone considering getting high-end binoculars for their optical quality should give serious consideration to the Canon 10x42 L IS WP binoculars, which give much better views. I’ll go out on a limb here and propose ratings, with 100% being views which can’t be improved upon. I’ll say the highest quality lenses (at notably higher prices) are essentially at their maximum, hence a score of 95%—put them on a tripod or immovable surface and they’re at 100%. I’ll give my Eagle Optics Rangers ED ($350, alas no longer available!) a 92 or 93%, and the Canon binoculars a 94%. With image-stabilization on, they score about 98% of a perfect image, going well beyond what non-stabilized but otherwise perfect optics can do. I would love to see the high-end binocular manufacturers shrink the image-stabilization mechanism and improve the ergonomics. Come to think of it, high quality zoom (something that’s never been achieved in birding binoculars) would be nice, too.Note: I took a double chance and bought a returned pair of binoculars (“damaged box”) at a big discount from Amazon Warehouse. The binoculars had an annoying fine tremor when the image stabilization was on, but I could still often get total image stability for a second or two at a time. After several months of living with it, I called Canon to find out if this tremor was normal. They said “No”, so I shipped them back at my expense. Since the 3-year warranty was valid, they were quickly repaired (the image stabilization mechanism was replaced) and soon shipped back at Canon’s expense. So the support was excellent.In summary, I believe these give the best overall binocular views currently possible for birding binoculars (i.e. binoculars allowing sharp and quick focusing, quick bird-finding, waterproof, etc.), but the bulk (weight and poor fit-in-the-hand) plus the extra cost force a decision on what’s most important—like the decision to go from a high-zoom point-and-shoot camera to a bulky, more costly DSLR camera.