Fujinon FMTRSX

[Hogjaws]

Has anyone tried a binocular from this series? I have read in other webpages (http://www.holgermerlitz.de/) that they are fairly good glass for the money, maybe bulky and slightly heavy, but a good view. o:D

[SteveF]

Your statement pretty much summarizes the judgments on these binoculars. They are built to last under heavy usage. I have most models (8x30, 7x50, 10x70, and 16x70, but not the new 10x50), and I feel that they are excellent. It is said that their views are at the top; this is probably so. I haven't done side-by-side comparisons with other binoculars (never felt like doing it).

I'm sure you know that these are individually-focusing. They are not very close-focusing, either. These are designed as marine binoculars.

Any specific questions?

[solentbirder]

Has anyone tried a binocular from this series? I have read in other webpages (http://www.holgermerlitz.de/) that they are fairly good glass for the money, maybe bulky and slightly heavy, but a good view. o:D

The Fujinon FMT-SX series is very widely used and highly respected in the astronomical community. The 7x50, 10x70 and 16x70 offer superb optical quality and indestructable build quality. I've got the 10x70 and used to have the 7x50 (I only sold them due to the weight). I use mine for astronomy but they're excellent for any long-period observation from a static point - you wouldn't want to carry them far. The view is extremely comfortable and has that 'picture window' quality. Hope that helps.

[Hogjaws]

[QUOTE=SteveF]Your statement pretty much summarizes the judgments on these binoculars. They are built to last under heavy usage. I have most models (8x30, 7x50, 10x70, and 16x70, but not the new 10x50), and I feel that they are excellent. It is said that their views are at the top; this is probably so. I haven't done side-by-side comparisons with other binoculars (never felt like doing it).

I'm sure you know that these are individually-focusing. They are not very close-focusing, either. These are designed as marine binoculars.

Steve, how do you like the 8X 30's? Are they too wide for carrying around? How are they at sunrise or sunset for light gathering?

[SteveF]

Hogjaw,

The 8x30 FMTR's, in my opinion, are as good as it gets in an individual-focusing 8x30. Unlike the other FMT-types, these are small, the same size as Steiner 8x30's, Swarovski 8x30 porros (center-focusing or individual-focusing), and other 8x30 porros. The little exception might be that the prism housing is slightly larger, but this is only a slight difference.

The image quality (resolution, brightness, contrast, color, etc.) is very much like the best 8x30's. I don't notice a difference. As far as light gathering, I'd say that they are as good as the best 8x30's; they are certainly among the brightest 8x30's I seen. The Fujinon FMT's are advertised to have among the highest light transmission rates, 95% overall, if I recall correctly. As points of reference, by "the best", I mean the best 8x30-8x32's that I own or have looked through: in addition to those already listed, the Nikon 8x30E and Swarovski 8x30 SLC (roof).

I happen to like the Swarovksi 8x30 SLC roof prism only slightly more, but for an unusual reason. It seems to have a slight warm tone (slight yellow/orange bias) that is very pleasant to my eye. This, though, is not a position shared by everybody, so don't consider as a factor by which to judge here.

Hope this helped. If not, please ask more.

[jad29]

I have the 16x70 they are exceptional the eyepeiece are rather big, but optically excellent, really bright considered the power and exit pupil, they are also in the classifieds, i replaced them with nikon astroluxe 18x70, not sure there any better but eyepieces are smaller.

Jad

[s1moran]

i have the 8x30 fujinon if you are not bothered by the individual eye focusing and it does not bother you, these binoculars are just about as good as it gets with there flatfield view and there intake of light,and they are built to last ,not much fear of them not taking a knock plus a good soaking really a all weather bino,but a great view when you look through them, thought they where that good so i bought the 10x50 fmtr-sx, great glass for viewing the sky at night

[Hogjaws]

The review by Holger Merlitz rate them optically evenly with Nikon Superior E's, without the ergonomics, and a tougher field binocular too. They are also less expensive too.

[Otto McDiesel]

The review by Holger Merlitz rate them optically evenly with Nikon Superior E's, without the ergonomics, and a tougher field binocular too. They are also less expensive too.

How is the depth of field in the 8x30's? If you focus on 50 yards, do you have to refocus for infinity; do they need constant focusing when switching from 100 to 200 yards, or from 30 to 60 yards?
thanks.

[henry link]

How is the depth of field in the 8x30's? If you focus on 50 yards, do you have to refocus for infinity; do they need constant focusing when switching from 100 to 200 yards, or from 30 to 60 yards?
thanks.

Otto,

I have a pair of these. IMO the depth of field is not significantly different from any other 8X binocular. I briefly compared them just now to a motley selection; Nikon 8x32 SE, old Swarovski 8x30 porro, Zeiss 8x42 FL, CZJ 8x50 Octarem. I focused on an object at about 20m and could see no substantial difference among the group in Dof either in front or behind the object.

I agree with Holger Merlitz that these are roughly optically equivalent to the 8x32 SE. Coatings appear to be nearly identical so brightness, contrast and color transmission are very close. Both use field flatteners so edge sharpness is similar, but the Fujinons have slight barrel distortion compared to slight pincushion in the SE. The mechanical design of the Fujinon eyepiece/eyecup wastes alot of eye relief, so they behave as if the eye relief were shorter. The eyelens is deeply recessed by 7-8mm when the eyecups are rolled down so there is only about 9-10mm of effective eye relief with glasses. Extended, the eyecups are only about 2mm shorter than the eye relief so I have to press hard against them to see the whole field. Still for some situations, like marine use, they are a bit like having a pair of 8x32 SE's without the worries.

Henry

[Otto McDiesel]

Otto,

I have a pair of these. IMO the depth of field is not significantly different from any other 8X binocular. I briefly compared them just now to a motley selection; Nikon 8x32 SE, old Swarovski 8x30 porro, Zeiss 8x42 FL, CZJ 8x50 Octarem. I focused on an object at about 20m and could see no substantial difference among the group in Dof either in front or behind the object.

I agree with Holger Merlitz that these are roughly optically equivalent to the 8x32 SE. Coatings appear to be nearly identical so brightness, contrast and color transmission are very close. Both use field flatteners so edge sharpness is similar, but the Fujinons have slight barrel distortion compared to slight pincushion in the SE. The mechanical design of the Fujinon eyepiece/eyecup wastes alot of eye relief, so they behave as if the eye relief were shorter. The eyelens is deeply recessed by 7-8mm when the eyecups are rolled down so there is only about 9-10mm of effective eye relief with glasses. Extended, the eyecups are only about 2mm shorter than the eye relief so I have to press hard against them to see the whole field. Still for some situations, like marine use, they are a bit like having a pair of 8x32 SE's without the worries.

Henry

I was thinking about someone who will work from a boat and spend a lot of time spotting ducks (just locating them) before trapping them. The observations will be mostly at over 100 m (she ought to see and know her ducks with the bare eye at less than 100 m anyway). It might work.

[s1moran]

The review by Holger Merlitz rate them optically evenly with Nikon Superior E's, without the ergonomics, and a tougher field binocular too. They are also less expensive too.
I have never had a pair of nikon 8x32 se binoculars ,but did read holger merlitz report on the fujinon 8x30,so on that review i purchased the binoculars when i went out with them and looked through them,they where all that holger merlitz had said about them in the review,if you can live with the individual eye focusing ,some birder seem to find this a problem ,i do not, i even purchased the 10x50 fujinons for looking at the the sky at night.there are no unhappy fujinon owners

[astro_steph]

Has anyone tried a binocular from this series? I have read in other webpages (http://www.holgermerlitz.de/) that they are fairly good glass for the money, maybe bulky and slightly heavy, but a good view. o:D

Hi Hogjaws,I am considering buying these binoculars myself for astro use,I don't want to make any compromise on optical quality and according to countless users these are THE BEST 7x50 binos in the world !(currently used by the US army),and when I look at the specs I can understand why!
For Astro use I'll need something very sturdy with perfect protection (I want to be able to take them anywhere,under any temperature and humidity conditions,by the sea or in the mountains without having to worry about anything.
They are expensive in the uk (around £500),and I'm pretty sure they atomise anything costing twice the money,just look at the optical quality of porro binos costing £150 (much better than roofs costing £3-400 ) and we are talking now about a porro that costs more than that!
The fujinons are the only once that are known to give pin-point star images across 90% of the FOV.

Stephane

[ceasar]

Several years ago "Sky and Telescope" magazine did a review on Astronomical Binoculars by a military trained Bino technician who retired and ran his own Bino repair business. He stated that the Fujinon 7 x50 FMT's along with the Nikon 7 x 50 Astroluxes were the best. He said that the Nikon's were very slightly superior optically but overall, the Fujinon's were best because they were at least a pound lighter and had the ability to fit on a tripod adapter which the Nikon's did not have. Their objective hoods also had standard threading so Nebular Filters could be attached.
As an aside, in the article, he stated that the Nikon 10 x 42 SE was optically the best Bino he had ever tested. I saved the article, but can't remember where I put it!

[Wehr]

Several years ago "Sky and Telescope" magazine did a review on Astronomical Binoculars by a military trained Bino technician who retired and ran his own Bino repair business. He stated that the Fujinon 7 x50 FMT's along with the Nikon 7 x 50 Astroluxes were the best. He said that the Nikon's were very slightly superior optically but overall, the Fujinon's were best because they were at least a pound lighter and had the ability to fit on a tripod adapter which the Nikon's did not have. Their objective hoods also had standard threading so Nebular Filters could be attached.
As an aside, in the article, he stated that the Nikon 10 x 42 SE was optically the best Bino he had ever tested. I saved the article, but can't remember where I put it!


Ceasar,

you wrote "several years ago..."

Allow for the fact, that all big brands have improved and updated their products several times in the last years.

Walter

[Wehr]

Hi Hogjaws,I am considering buying these binoculars myself for astro use,I don't want to make any compromise on optical quality and according to countless users these are THE BEST 7x50 binos in the world !(currently used by the US army),and when I look at the specs I can understand why!
For Astro use I'll need something very sturdy with perfect protection (I want to be able to take them anywhere,under any temperature and humidity conditions,by the sea or in the mountains without having to worry about anything.
They are expensive in the uk (around £500),and I'm pretty sure they atomise anything costing twice the money,just look at the optical quality of porro binos costing £150 (much better than roofs costing £3-400 ) and we are talking now about a porro that costs more than that!
The fujinons are the only once that are known to give pin-point star images across 90% of the FOV.

Stephane


There is no army in the world using the best binocs in the world (optically) - why should they? Soldiers are not looking at stars. Armies prefer mechanical quality, sturdiness and waterproofness. There were various complaints about fogged Nikon bins in Europe in the last two years - mentioned in several optic forums. The US army uses several brands at the same time: at this moment Steiner, Nikon, Minox (army, but mainly police), Zeiss and some specials (custom-made, which are also the Fujinon).

Walter

[Migaloo]

G'day,

I've owned an example of the 7*50 FMTR-SX for about 6 years.

I think it is important to keep in mind that these specific binos are designed for the maritime environment and they excel within this context.

Leaving the individual dioptre adjustments on the zero setting gives those with perfect vision and those with glasses, thanks to the 25mm eye relief, a depth of field from approx. 20 meters to infinity. Therefore, they are perfect for both scanning the distance or lingering on an object at over 20 meters without having to refocus. The maritime arena is where DOF really counts!

Yes they are heavy but this actually makes them easier to steady on a pitching/rolling boat than lighter binos (I find light compact binos hard to steady on terra firma!). I use mine so regularly that I do not notice the weight and my better half uses them less frequently so she does find them somewhat heavy ... but that doesn't prevent her from continually trying to hijack them from me.

I've spent the last 3 days off the Sydney coastline looking for and observing humpback whales. The conditions have been calm and warm, therefore the whales haven't been working/blowing that hard and the relatively hot conditions mean that those smaller blows haven't been subject to as much condensation as on colder days. Thankfully, the Fujinons' contrast and light gathering ability allows faint puffs to be discerned at considerable distances ... a most severe practical test of optical quality!

Their window-like qualities allow for long observing sessions without causing any discomfort to the eyes.

Note that I use Fujinon 14*40 IS binos for more magnification of distant objects of intrest and/or in harsher sea-state conditions.

BTW: the last 3 days haven't been that spectacular in terms of whales but the incredible number of dolphins, albatross and shearwaters have been most impressive.

[ceasar]

Ceasar,

you wrote "several years ago..."

Allow for the fact, that all big brands have improved and updated their products several times in the last years.

Walter

You have a point, Walter. If the optics in the 2 atronomical bins have been improved, so much the better. However, I haven't heard of Nikon changing the Astroluxe to enable them to be used with a tripod adapter or changing them to allow use of astronomical filters. The Fuji's are more user friendly in weight and versatility, and I believe they cost about $250.00 less. I just threw in the comment on the 10 x 42 SE's because the author had it in the article, which was about Binoculars for Astronomy.

[s1moran]

i have the 8x30 fujinon fmtr-sx what a great pair of binoculars sharp to the edge ,and not to bad in low light, i use them for bird spotting and looking at the night sky,well built and able to take what ever nature can throw at them .they may be a little heavy for some ,but that has never botherd me they feel good in the hand ,and the individual eye focusing has never been a problem to me even out birding ,soon got the hang of it ,i prefer the fujinon 8x30 to my nikon 8x32 se which are a very good glass ,but not as robust as the fujinons,i also have the fujinon 10x50 fmtr-sx but they are a bit to heavy to walk round with round your neck,but on the tri-pod ,a great pair to look through,i am a big fujinon fan as you can see..there are know unhappy fujinon owners (we iam not)

[Hogjaws]

Fujinons,

Well, I finally got a pair of the 8X30's FMTR_SX's. They are the approximate size and weight (25 oz) of other full size binos. They do have a good view, better than most everything I have looked through in the mid size range. There is almost no CA and they are bright for their size. They appear to be tough as nails or even a Ruger, maybe I will hammer the tent pegs in with them to see how tough they really are (not really). In low light conditions they can't keep up to my VII's, but they are still mighty fine. I call thes binos my "Po Mans Leicas".

All in all I can't complain for a package less than $400 US. However, I wouldn't bother with the 7X50's. Their extra weight would make me stoop over even more, and I would probably end up dragging them on the ground!

All the Best to Yu All,

Hogjaws

[John Finnan]

Several years ago "Sky and Telescope" magazine did a review on Astronomical Binoculars by a military trained Bino technician who retired and ran his own Bino repair business. He stated that the Fujinon 7 x50 FMT's along with the Nikon 7 x 50 Astroluxes were the best. He said that the Nikon's were very slightly superior optically but overall, the Fujinon's were best because they were at least a pound lighter and had the ability to fit on a tripod adapter which the Nikon's did not have. Their objective hoods also had standard threading so Nebular Filters could be attached.
As an aside, in the article, he stated that the Nikon 10 x 42 SE was optically the best Bino he had ever tested. I saved the article, but can't remember where I put it!

The Nikon 7x50 IF SP model is named the "Prostar" and not the "Astroluxe". The Astroluxe name is used for the Nikon IF SP 10x70 and 18x70 models. There is not a one pound difference in weight between the Fujinon 7x50 FMTs and the Nikon 7x50 Prostars. At most is it 1 or 2 ounces and since both weigh around 50 ounces it is inconsequential. Both models can be tripod mounted. The advantage the Fujinons have is that you use use a "standard" tripod adapter that will not only work with the Fujinons but also with most other Japanese binoculars. Those type of tripod adapters cost between $10 - $25 depending upon the quality. Nikon has a proprietary tripod adapter that works with the Prostar and Astroluxe binoculars and also the SE binoculars. The Nikon adapter also works with several of the Zeiss Classic binoculars (e.g., 15x60 B/GATs). The Nikon tripod adapter costs around $40.

I had a chance to compare pairs of the Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX and Nikon 10x70 Astroluxes recently. Both are extremely sharp and clear on axis. However, towards the outer edge of the field the Nikon retains its sharpness better than the Fujinons do. However, the Fujinons are still very good and given that they can be purchased (in the US anyway) at about half the cost of the Nikons there are an excellent value for the money.

The Nikon 7x50 Prostars are also very sharp out towards the edge and I'd be surprised if the 7x50 Fujinons can fully match them in that category. However, like their 10x70 big brothers, the Fujinon 7x50s have an excellent reputation, sell for considerably less then the Nikon 7x50 Prostars and are an excellent value for the money.

The higher power 18x70 Nikon Astroluxe has a 72 degree apparent field versus a 64 degree one for the 16x70 Fujinons. Between those two models the Fujinon is a sharper out towards the far edge of the field. And it also sells for about half the cost of the Nikon 18x70s it is also an excellent value for the money.

[MBS]

Quoting Hogjaws : In low light conditions they can't keep up to my VII's, but they are still mighty fine. I call thes binos my "Po Mans Leicas".

What do you mean with "VII's". This is a binocular for sure, but what one? Thank you for your help.

[Hogjaws]

MBS,

VII are Zeiss Victory II. Sorry about that.

Hogjaws

[MBS]

MBS,

VII are Zeiss Victory II. Sorry about that.

Hogjaws

Thank you for your information,

MBS

[Perry Jones]

i have the 8x30 fujinon if you are not bothered by the individual eye focusing and it does not bother you, these binoculars are just about as good as it gets with there flatfield view and there intake of light,and they are built to last ,not much fear of them not taking a knock plus a good soaking really a all weather bino,but a great view when you look through them, thought they where that good so i bought the 10x50 fmtr-sx, great glass for viewing the sky at night

Response-

I have the 10 x 50 FMTR SX and extensively compared these bins to my friend's 10X56 Zeiss Victory FL. These bins are very close in brightness, field of view, and resolution. If there was a difference, we could not tell which bin was better.

The Zeiss have slightly (the differences were very slight) better color correction. The Zeiss had a noticeable edge in reduction of internal reflections at night, when ziewing images with stray lighting sources off axis. The Zeiss were the better bins, but cost nearly 3 times as much. If cost is no object, the Zeiss are the bins. The Fujinon is remarkably close in performance at about 1/3 the cost. The Zeiss, with center focus, are easier to use and focus much more closely. Quality of construction appears to be equal, both very good. The Fujinon bins continue to satisfy me although they are heavy and also bulky. I will keep this Fujis and sell my Steiner 10 X 50 military marine binocs. The Steiner is noticeably inferior as compared with the Fujinon.

[ksbird/foxranch]

I have the Fujinon 6x30 FMTR, and the US Army M-22 made by Fujinon which is like the 7x50 FMTR. I also have the Fujinon 7x50 FMT sold to the Japanese police, and it has a polymer coated polycarbonate body. I compare these to the US Army M-17 with field flattener (made by US makers), the Nikon 7x50 Prostar with field flattener and the last series of both the Zeiss 7x50 T*B marine and the Zeiss Jena Binoctar. The Fuji 6x30 is so much bigger than other 6x30s it is more fat like a large 7x35 although a bit more squat. It's also heavy. The views are great, but it weighs more than my Steiner 8x30 military bins.

The views through all the Fujinons are great. The M-17 made for the US Army was perhaps better but got to be incredibly expensive to make, as did the Zeiss 7x50 T*B marine and the Zeiss Jena Binoctar. Nikon has continued to make the Prostar in spite of the high cost because of the large Japanese astronomy market. The military binoculars are all as good as the civilian binoculars because governments are spending tax dollars and so price is no object. In addition they are rugged too. This is why the Fujinon 7x50 FMT is the same as the US Army M-22. The Fuijis were always rugged and they are actually cheaper to buy for the government than the M-17 made by B&L and some other US based companies. The Prostar is probably the least rugged of the group and while they are waterproof, the "hard" housings and limited internal shock mounting fail more often than military style bins, as I have seen many damaged Prostars compared to Fujis.

The most surprising bin of this bunch I have is the Fujinon 7x50 FMT with IF and a poly body. It is almost lightweight yet the views don't suffer. The cost is rather astounding being about $300 more than the standard 7x50 FMTR and you have to find a SWAT supplier in Japan to sell them to you, but the lighter weight is a real shock. Supposedly another reason why the Zeiss 7x50 Marine was discontinued was because Steiner's 7x50 Marine was so good the higher priced Zeiss 7x50 Marine and the Swarovski 7x50 SLC porro weren't selling. Also Docter was entering the market. The newish Jenoptik 7x42 is pretty spectacular but not quite as good as the Nikon EIIs and others with field flatteners,. The KOMZ with field flattener is perhaps the sharpest binocular Holger Merlitz has ever reviewed and of course, it's military too (I love mine and on cloudy days with the accompanying blue tint to everything, the KOMZ 7x30 is the best view I have). So far Holger (who works in China) has not found any Chinese bins quite as good as the best European and Nikon bins.

[Tero]

So far Holger (who works in China) has not found any Chinese bins quite as good as the best European and Nikon bins.
Only the Nikon LX/premier series is made in Japan.