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
Hogjaws said: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
SteveF said: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?
Hogjaws said: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 said: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 said: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 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 ownersHogjaws said: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.
Hogjaws said: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
ceasar said: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!
astro_steph said: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
Wehr said: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