Fujinon HC Hyper Binoculars - Made In House …. Japan. What Does This Actually Mean ? (1 Viewer)

[gcole]

From my research Fujinon’s lower priced binoculars are sourced out of China. Their premium line say made in Japan. This brings me to their latest binoculars, the HC Hyper 8x42 and 10 power. If I am correct these are described as being made in house, made in Japan. What does this actually mean ? So many topics here have been trying to pin down who actually produces their own lens, from the raw materials to ending in grinding/polishing and then to their final assembly. Are we to believe in today’s economy that Fujinon actually does own all of its factories in Japan which make all of the HC Hyper line of Binoculars ? ….. from the lens, to include all internal parts with its final assembly box ready for sale to the public.

 

[Ted Y.]

Fujinon HC is marked Made in Japan. It must repect the definition of "Made in" as specified in Japanese law (if any).
At least, the box of Nikon HG displays: Box Made in China Binocular Made in Japan.
I am not expecting all components to be produced by Fuji or in Japan, but I am expecting some processes (quality control of components, assembly, quality control of binocular) to be done in Japan. The lens can be made in Germany, right?

 

[WJC]

From my research Fujinon’s lower priced binoculars are sourced out of China. Their premium line say made in Japan. This brings me to their latest binoculars, the HC Hyper 8x42 and 10 power. If I am correct these are described as being made in house, made in Japan. What does this actually mean ? So many topics here have been trying to pin down who actually produces their own lens, from the raw materials to ending in grinding/polishing and then to their final assembly. Are we to believe in today’s economy that Fujinon actually does own all of its factories in Japan which make all of the HC Hyper line of Binoculars ? ….. from the lens, to include all internal parts with its final assembly box ready for sale to the public.

Fujinon HC is marked Made in Japan. It must repect the definition of "Made in" as specified in Japanese law (if any).
At least, the box of Nikon HG displays: Box Made in China Binocular Made in Japan.
I am not expecting all components to be produced by Fuji or in Japan, but I am expecting some processes (quality control of components, assembly, quality control of binocular) to be done in Japan. The lens can be made in Germany, right?

The closer one gets to the premier quality binoculars, the more tight-lipped the corporate leaders become. I believe the better FUJINONS are MADE by Katsuma (JB 2). In AR coatings, we have ED, HD, SV, CAT, SPARC, and many others. The main thing to remember is that the name has much more to do with marketing than performance. For many years, the industry standard was magnesium fluoride. Today, we're into all kinds of MULTI-coatings. The second thing to remember is that jumping from magnesium fluoride to one of the multi-coatings, you can gain about about a 13% increase in light throughput, when dealing with coatings alone! In regard to coatings ALONE, many people can't tell the difference.

Marketers are making the big bucks off of people who would rather pontificate on binocular forums than do serious research on quantifiable resources.

 

[Ted Y.]

The second thing to remember is that jumping from magnesium fluoride to one of the multi-coatings, you can gain about about a 13% increase in light throughput, when dealing with coatings alone! In regard to coatings ALONE, many people can't tell the difference.

If I understand correctly, many people can't tell the difference when the gain is a 13% increase in light throughput?

 

[has530]

If I understand correctly, many people can't tell the difference when the gain is a 13% increase in light throughput?

While I do not have the means to measure for myself, I was hard pressed to see a brightness difference side-by-side between my vanguard endeavor edii and swarovski SLC neu 10x42. Those two were measured by allbinos at 79 and 91% transmission respectively, a difference of 12% and I was hard pressed to discern it. (the swarovskis obviously outclassed the vanguard in many other ways that were far more noticeable).

 

[forent]

(...) The second thing to remember is that jumping from magnesium fluoride to one of the multi-coatings, you can gain about about a 13% increase in light throughput, when dealing with coatings alone! In regard to coatings ALONE, many people can't tell the difference. (...)

If I understand correctly, many people can't tell the difference when the gain is a 13% increase in light throughput?

While I do not have the means to measure for myself, I was hard pressed to see a brightness difference side-by-side between my vanguard endeavor edii and swarovski SLC neu 10x42. Those two were measured by allbinos at 79 and 91% transmission respectively, a difference of 12% and I was hard pressed to discern it. (...).

(Old thread, I know.)
Unsurprising to me. Many years ago I compared the different 50mm lenses for my Contax and Minolta analogue SLRs: The 2.8 macro lenses appeared visibly dimmer than the faster 1.4 and 1.7 fifties but the difference between the latter was barely noticeable to me in direct comparison. While an 1.4 should be 50% brighter (all else equal)! The same effect occured when I stopped down the 1.4 lens by a half stop - nearly indistinguishable. Of course I had younger eyes in those days. But even today the difference in brightness between a modern Swarovski SLC and a 30 years old Leica Trinovid is no big deal to me.

Hence, I am always slightly amused when some people rave about e.g. 4% difference in transmittance. But maybe I'm just blind as a bat, who knows.

 

[Binocollector]

Our eyes don't perceive a 50% reduction in brightness as 50% as our senses (basically all of them) work according to a logarithmic scale. I talked to an experienced seller who also sells astro equipment and he told me that you only start noticing a difference at around 10-15 % more light transmission. However differences in brightness are more easily perceived when it is darker while not so much when it is brighter -- therefore a vintage bino works just fine in bright sunlight but maybe not so much in twilight when a 4% difference might become noticeable.
The Weber-Fechner-law (see links below) explains that you notice differences in stimuli according to how big the existing stimuli already is. So when holding a weight of 50 gr in one hand you'd notice an increase of 1 gr but when holding a weight of 500 gr you only notice an increase of 10 gr. Therefore -- one can not see much of a difference between binos with differing transmission values in bright daylight but more so in low light conditions.
I enjoy all my vintage binos despite the lower transmission. And even my vintage Hensoldt without any coatings at all still works just fine for my eyes.

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00636.x

Weber–Fechner law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Weber-Fechner Law: what it is and what it explains - psychology - 2024

A summary of the Weber-Fechner Law, an explanation based on psychophysics that shows how we perceive certain sensory stimuli.

warbletoncouncil.org

 

[Binastro]

The similarity in brightness between a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and 50mm f/1.4 is probably because of vignetting in the faster lens. Also the faster lens I think had an extra lens element.

The 58mm f/1.4 and 55mm f/1.7? are earlier versions.

The 58mm f/1.2 Minolta lens is almost as fast at f/2 as at f/1.2 at the edge of the field although the centre is faster at f/1.2.

The Contax SLR lenses were highly regarded.

For variable star observers, the steps are measured at 0.1 magnitude, or a 9% difference.
This can be seen reliably.
However, a 5% difference is less certain.
I could reliably see the 9% difference, but not 4% or 5%.

Some people cannot judge brightness differences much greater than 10%.

Regards,
B.

 

[forent]

Binocollector, thanks a lot for your explanations - really interesting! BTW, I compared the 50mm lenses at that time of course in "available light" conditions. Therefore I should have been sufficiently sensitive to their difference in brightness. The same holds for my comparison SLC-Trinovid last year. But even then the undisputable higher transmission of the SLC was for me rather inconsiderable. As always: that's just me; YMMV.

 

[forent]

The similarity in brightness between a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and 50mm f/1.4 is probably because of vignetting in the faster lens. Also the faster lens I think had an extra lens element. (...)
I could reliably see the 9% difference, but not 4% or 5%. Some people cannot judge brightness differences much greater than 10%. (...)
Regards,
B.

Thanks for your explanations, too! The lenses mentioned were the Minolta MD 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 and the Carl Zeiss Planar MM T* 50/1.4 and 50/1.7. The two 1.4 fifties had seven and the 1.7 fifties six lenses. But the light loss induced by the seventh fully multicoated lens should be marginal and the vignetting of the 1.7 versions fully opened was only slightly weaker than that of the 1.4 variants. (All Lichtriesen at least of that time showed quite a bit of vignetting.) Moreover, the difference in brightness was indicated by the light meter of the camera that showed a half stop shorter shutter speeds.
Maybe I'm actually one of the brightness insensitive humans you wrote about.

 

[Binastro]

Ah, light meters.

The Minolta SRTs had clc meters, two cells giving contrast readings.
However, as the prism balsam yellowed these readings became inaccurate.
A Minolta correct service included rebalsaming the prisms, but who knows if this was actually done.
The mercury batteries were highly reliable, but later banned.

The Minolta X series meters were probably different, maybe centre weighted or slightly adjusted for just above centre.
Also different batteries.

I don't know about the Contax RTS.
I wanted one, but never got one.

Regards,
B.

 

[forent]

The cameras I used were Minolta X-700 and Contax RTS III i.e. models of the late 80s and not the early 70s. I guess (!) their meters were more reliable.

 

[Foss]

However differences in brightness are more easily perceived when it is darker while not so much when it is brighter -- therefore a vintage bino works just fine in bright sunlight but maybe not so much in twilight when a 4% difference might become noticeable.

^ This