• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Fujinon new 12x28 vs Canon IS (1 Viewer)

I don't think so. I really don't see why you want a 10x with IS. The big advantage to these is having high magnification with a steady tripod view that you can carry in your coat pocket or easily with a strap. Why not have 12x or 16x. The FOV's are relatively large and they are not difficult for eye placement. I don't see why these wouldn't work for daylight birding in open areas where you don't need a big FOV or a lot of DOF to find the bird. When you are on the bird 16x is MUCH more impressive than 8x and you can see MUCH more detail. It is like sitting right next to them! The big reason birders don't use above 10x is shake but if you have a steady view why not use 12x or 16x? You get a better view of the bird. I think these new Fujinon's might change a lot of people's minds about IS binoculars because these are so user friendly and fun. It was very wise of Fujinon to reduce the objective size to 28mm to get the weight and size of the binoculars down to a normal size birding binocular. You don't need a 42mm aperture like the Canon 10x42 ISD-L in the daylight with IS because it makes eye placement easier and most people don't want to carry a big heavy 42 oz. brick like the Canon birding. That is why IS has never sold that well in the mainstream market. These Fujinon's could change that.
 
Last edited:
How long will Dennis keep the Fujinon 16x28?

The lack of CA is probably because of the small aperture of 28mm.
If a 42mm binocular is stopped down to 28mm it will also have little CA.

I used to hand hold the specially made Soviet 20x60 for extended periods bracing where possible.
I could see things invisible with smaller binoculars.

I also had no trouble hand holding the Pentax 8x-20x24 binocular although only one of three was high quality optically.

If I could get a guaranteed high quality, non lemon, Fujinon 16x28 I would be interested, although I don't need it.
I certainly am unimpressed by the Fujinon 14x40 stabilizer, although the actual image is high quality.

The Bushnell 10x35 IS binocular I have is junk.

With the Fujinon 28 IS binoculars there is only one question. Are they all high quality or are they mainly sub standard.

Regards,
B.
 
The big advantage to these is having high magnification with a steady tripod view that you can carry in your coat pocket or easily with a strap.
Yes I agree but my main doubt is regarding FOV e.g. for flying birds. Canon IS 10x30 should have 105m, compared to 12x Fujinon 73m.
A 10x28 Fujinon could be in the middle...
 
I really feel 10x can be handheld so the IS is wasted. I use 10x handheld all the time. I think that is Fujinon's thinking also. I had no trouble at all watching flying Seagulls soaring overhead with the 12x28 and 16x28 and the IS really worked well for that. But maybe trying to follow a Peregrine Falcon would be a different story. A lot of people use IS binoculars for plane tracking with good results also because you can stay on the target better. For really distant flying birds the 16x would be awesome. Both of my Fujinon's have been top quality with nothing wrong. I think they are a big improvement over the Canon's. They have fixed every problem people complained about with the Canon's. The ergonomics are much improved with comfortable adjustable eye cups and the stabilization switch is located where you can see and reach it easily. It stays on for ten minutes and then shuts off. The battery is a much lighter and more importantly smaller CR2 so it takes up less space making the whole binocular smaller and less bulky and the battery lasts much longer partly because the IS mechanism uses less energy. The battery door is a steel threaded round removable cap that won't break like the Canon's pop-up cap. The binocular is much lighter and smaller than a comparable Canon. The IS system on the Fujinon corrects to 3 degrees versus only 1 degree on the Canon and unlike the Canon it stabilizes the view while you are focusing so there are no artifacts like the Canon. Fujinon made the binocular very light by reducing the objective size to 28mm instead of 32mm and making the body out of fiberglass reinforced plastic. Neither the 12x28 or the 16x28 have a huge FOV but to do that would have meant a larger and heavier binocular with more complex eyepieces. With the small exit pupils these are day light binoculars but surprisingly they seem as bright in the daytime as say an 8x32 binocular. The difference between the 12x28 and the 16x28 is the 16x is a little more difficult for eye placement because of the 1.8mm exit pupil versus the 2.5mm in the 12x32. But the 16x32 has a bigger AFOV so the view is more immersive than the 12x32 and let me tell you 16x is a huge difference from an 8x or 10x binocular. You can see WAY more detail with a tripod like 16x view. I probably prefer the 16x a little more than the 12x although either is excellent. Finally, an IS binocular that a birder could use.
 
Last edited:
"With the Fujinon 28 IS binoculars there is only one question. Are they all high quality or are they mainly sub standard."

I have purchased the Fujinon 12x28 and the 16x28 from two different places and both of them have been perfect in quality and performance. Not one problem or defect. So from my experience I see no quality problems. The sub-standard question frankly surprise me because I didn't see any problems on my samples.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably going to place an order for the 16x. I'm going to hope for the best but be prepared to return. I don't normally buy with the intent to return, but my new Canon 14x32 arrived as a very poorly packaged and dirty return so I won't have too much guilt.

If I get 16x IS with mediocre optics but in a more ergonomic design than my Canon 14x32 I will be very happy.

Thanks for your impressions, Denco.
 
18000bph, I'm looking forward to your review especially since you have the Canon 14x32 for comparison. I was originally more interested in the 16x Fujinon and spoke to the bino guy at Fujinon. He was really hot on the 12 power and that swayed me over. I don't know if he even had a chance to handle the 16x yet since it was before they were available.

In terms of quality. Time will tell. I'm still waiting for my refund...

The bigger question to me is on the optical quality and if a mediocre 16x view is worth it. I know Dennis thinks highly of the optics. My sense wasn't as favorable but I did have a bad pair. If someone had a specific need for that kind of power in a small package then it's a no brainer. But, I get as much enjoyment from the quality of the image vs what I'm actually looking at.

So, please buy them :) I'm very interested in a side by side comparison with the Canons.
 
I have purchased the Fujinon 12x32 and the 16x32 from two different places and both of them have been perfect in quality and performance. Not one problem or defect. So from my experience I see no quality problems. The sub-standard question frankly surprise me because I didn't see any problems on my samples.

So your sample is N=1 for both the 12x32 and the 16x32.

I tried two different 12x32s (N=2). Both were lemons.

What does that tell us about the quality of the Fujinons?

Hermann
 
Has the Fujinon magically become a 32 mm binocular now?

Let's hear from other Fujinon users how they find the image quality of the 12x28 and 16x28 stabilised. I have only seen poor ones, so has Pinac and Hermann.

As to the benefits of IS with lower magnifications, there is still a non-trivial ca. 30-35 % improvement in available detail with IS at 10x, not even mentioning the increased time that detail is available. Even at 8x, a stable image is a huge benefit over hand-held.

- Kimmo
 
As far as know all of these new IS binoculars use the same IS technology. I had a quick look at the Viking and Opticron version. The stabilisation on both worked better than I was expecting, and for me at least, better than the Canon technology. Though the short power up period was a bit disconcerting. Optically, the Opticron was the better of the two at 10x producing a decent gain in detail. For the 12x Opticron at least, the stabilisation advantage was becoming somewhat neutralised by a softer image for my eyes, but I imagine others will find it more beneficial.

David
 
I'm probably going to place an order for the 16x. I'm going to hope for the best but be prepared to return. I don't normally buy with the intent to return, but my new Canon 14x32 arrived as a very poorly packaged and dirty return so I won't have too much guilt.

If I get 16x IS with mediocre optics but in a more ergonomic design than my Canon 14x32 I will be very happy.

Thanks for your impressions, Denco.
I don't think it is mediocre for it's size but keep in mind it is a 16x28 not a 12x50. That is only a 1.8mm exit pupil.
 
Last edited:
18000bph, I'm looking forward to your review especially since you have the Canon 14x32 for comparison. I was originally more interested in the 16x Fujinon and spoke to the bino guy at Fujinon. He was really hot on the 12 power and that swayed me over. I don't know if he even had a chance to handle the 16x yet since it was before they were available.

In terms of quality. Time will tell. I'm still waiting for my refund...

The bigger question to me is on the optical quality and if a mediocre 16x view is worth it. I know Dennis thinks highly of the optics. My sense wasn't as favorable but I did have a bad pair. If someone had a specific need for that kind of power in a small package then it's a no brainer. But, I get as much enjoyment from the quality of the image vs what I'm actually looking at.

So, please buy them :) I'm very interested in a side by side comparison with the Canons.
The difference between the 12x28 and the 16x28 is the 16x with it's smaller 1.8mm exit pupil is little more finicky with eye placement than the 2.5mm exit pupil of the 12x28. But the 16x28 has a bigger AFOV so it has the immersive view you were looking for and it is 16x which brings a lot more detail to the table.
 
So your sample is N=1 for both the 12x32 and the 16x32.

I tried two different 12x32s (N=2). Both were lemons.

What does that tell us about the quality of the Fujinons?

Hermann
I am really surprised you got two lemons. Did you purchase them right when they were introduced? Where from? They are MIC and we all know if there isn't stringent QA by the manufacturer there can be inconsistency problems.
 
Last edited:
As far as know all of these new IS binoculars use the same IS technology. I had a quick look at the Viking and Opticron version. The stabilisation on both worked better than I was expecting, and for me at least, better than the Canon technology. Though the short power up period was a bit disconcerting. Optically, the Opticron was the better of the two at 10x producing a decent gain in detail. For the 12x Opticron at least, the stabilisation advantage was becoming somewhat neutralised by a softer image for my eyes, but I imagine others will find it more beneficial.

David
I think the softer image could be the higher 12x magnification versus lower magnification. I have always noticed 12x seems softer than 8x.
 
"As to the benefits of IS with lower magnifications, there is still a non-trivial ca. 30-35 % improvement in available detail with IS at 10x, not even mentioning the increased time that detail is available. Even at 8x, a stable image is a huge benefit over hand-held."

That was my error on the 32mm Fujinon. I corrected it. According to John's graph there is a benefit with stabilization even at 6x but the benefit of course increases with higher magnification. Your correct according to the graph there is a 30-35 % improvement in available detail with IS versus handheld at 10x,
 

Attachments

  • Efficency vs Magnification, Vukobratovich.jpg
    Efficency vs Magnification, Vukobratovich.jpg
    62.5 KB · Views: 72
Last edited:
Hi friends,sorry for me spanglish, I introduce myself, my name is Juan and I live in Spain, I have reached your forum because I was interested in stabilized binoculars to see birds and airplanes preferably, I have a Canon 12x36ISlll for a couple of years with which I am very happy but They are a bit heavy and bulky, I don't like the stabilization button and I want a little more reach.
I have valued the new generation of Canon 14x32 and Fujinon 16x28 and I have decided and bought the Fujinon for its size and simplicity of stabilization button, I will receive it within a week or two and I hope I have not been wrong seeing that there are diverse opinions and the Canon I have set the bar very high.
When I receive it I will write my impressions and share them with you if you are still here je je
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top