FUJIYAMA-8X30 Weitwinkel / Komz lookalike (1 Viewer)

I have had this in my gallery a while now, but a comment this week made me think it might be worth posting on here. The comment was how strange to see a Japanese logo on a Komz BNU 8x30. It is strange. Simon has already commented that it is a Russian copy of the Jenoptem, but it is a strange binocular. It is very good, looks like new, and performs slightly better than the Komz that I have as it does not have that yellow tint, and it is pretty nigh as good as my Zeiss Jenoptem, but what we have here is an identical style to the Russian Komz, with the Japanese Fujiyama logo, Weitwinkel, the German word for wide field, and 5 Linser, which I believe is Swedish for 5 Lenses. And it was purchased in the UK. I have not seen another like this, bit of a mongrel, but I like it, it's a very good instrument..

Bencw,
It is striking that the description of the binocular's properties are all in German, so it could very well be that a well-known German binocular producer (Beck for example) made it under the name Fujjiama, but I do not know, it is an hypothesis.
Gijs

. Dear Ben,
could you post a larger photo or close-ups of the markings as I cannot see them very clearly.
The Soviet/Russian binoculars do I think I have five element eyepieces which may be exact copies of the original Zeiss binocular on which it is probably based.
I like this eyepiece very much and used it as my main eyepiece on my Maksutov 150 mm f/10 telescope. I think the focal length was given as 15.5 mm.
It used to be sold I think by HW English as their E 59? Eyepiece.
When I went into their large warehouse at the back the floor was littered with 8×30 Soviet monoculars missing their eyepieces.
These eyepieces were put on a lathe and made into 24.5 mm or 0.965 inch eyepieces. This gave the largest possible field in a 24.5 mm draw tube telescope. this was the standard draw tube size at the time.

The Soviet/Russian binoculars often have slightly different coloured coatings on each side which does not seem to happen with Japanese binoculars.
Does the binocular illustrated have identical coatings on each side?

That's a Russian binocular, loosely based on the Zeiss Deltrintem. The wide focussing ring, the shape of the eyecups and the yellow serial number are typical of Russian 8x30s of that type. Another typical feature is that the housing covers are sealed with tar. That's just about visible in the photo.

Hermann

Hermann,
I think that you are right, the binocular looks very much like a Russian 8x30, puzzling is now: wy Fujiyama and why the German inscriptions.
Gijs

. It does look like the Soviet 8×30 if the serial number is correct and it is made in 1988.
However, I didn't think they were so desperate then that they would need to make different top plates with possibly fictitious details.
If it is actually later and Russian then I think they would make alternative top plates if someone gave them an order for a reasonable quantity.

Another explanation is that it is a Soviet 1988 binocular and somebody has added different top plates later.

Binastro said:

. It does look like the Soviet 8×30 if the serial number is correct and it is made in 1988.
However, I didn't think they were so desperate then that they would need to make different top plates with possibly fictitious details.
If it is actually later and Russian then I think they would make alternative top plates if someone gave them an order for a reasonable quantity.

Another explanation is that it is a Soviet 1988 binocular and somebody has added different top plates later.

Click to expand...

Thanks all for comments.

Dear Binastro,

Here is a closer photo of the markings on the left. I think Hermann is right about it being Russian, but there has been no adding or tampering with prism plates, I'm sure, I have inspected it closely and the finish on all the plates matches, it is mint, perfect, no marks to indicate tampering, and the writing on both sides matches in shade, although Fujiyama is in larger font. I am sure this is how this binocular was produced, but it's a mystery why it has Fujiyama and German wording on it. Everything points to Russian, the body outside and looking inside the objective end is identical to my BNU5 but optically they seem more like my German Jenna 8x30s, the coatings are the same both sides and it gives a slightly brighter, more neutral view than other Russian bins that I have. Could it be a Japanese copy of the Russian copy of the Zeiss, they did love to copy?

. Dear Ben,
to me it looks like a Russian or Soviet made binocular.
They may just have got an order for several hundred pieces with a different name on it.
There are Russian binoculars with newer whiter glass possibly of Chinese origin. They seem to be later maybe much later than 1988.

Is there any indication from paperwork or anything else to suggest when the binocular was made?
it may be that only somebody with contacts in the factory actually knows.

As to the origins of many binoculars, what it actually says on them often has no bearing on where the binocular is made. There are whole companies with misleading names hoping that the public will buy the binocular actually by misleading them as to the country of origin.
This doesn't happen only with binoculars and often with other consumer goods.

However, I can't at the moment think of other examples of Soviet optics which are not proud to say they are Soviet.
Although I think that some Bushnell binoculars such as image stabilised ones may be Russian. And I think that even British image stabilised products are actually Russian.
So maybe this is more common than I thought.
It probably also applies to image intensifiers, which are actually Russian and not indicated as such.
so it may be that some of these Soviet/Russian factories are more open to commercialism than I thought.
One thing though is that the Soviet operations generally I think had five-year plans and it was very difficult to get the committee to agree to changes that had not been planned well in advance.

. Here is a tale following on from my post number 3 above.
it is about the beauty of both capitalism and communism, or maybe the madness of both.
I have wondered about this for a long time.

My frugal Martian friend looking on from his rather sparse planet looks on to the bountiful blue planet Earth and sees the assembly of the nice 8×30 monoculars.
He sees the skilled Communist optical worker assembling the good quality eyepieces, prisms and object glasses into a finished fine useful monocular.
This is then wrapped in tissue paper and sent to the quality-controller who checks the monocular and signs the informative paperwork. this informs the user that the monocular works at a very mild to the Martian -40°. The finished monocular and paperwork is then put in the box.
Then hundreds of these monoculars are sent abroad at very low F.O.B.prices, about a third of what they should be.

The capitalist in the country to the West, namely England, receives the parcel and unwraps the monoculars.
He takes off the eyecups, removes the eyepieces and then discards the paperwork and the brand-new prisms, objectives and metal parts.
the ever-increasing mountain of dead ex-monoculars on the warehouse floor begins to look interesting. It should probably be exhibited at the Tate modern gallery.
He then does some work on the eyepiece on the lathe.
He then sells the eyepiece at double the price of the brand-new monocular.

Another capitalist, me, then receives the eyepiece and uses it happily for years on his telescope and thinks what wonderful value the eyepiece was.

Scroll forward a decade or two and my Martian friend sees another Communist country, China, producing vast quantities of optics and even larger quantities of other goods which dwarf the Soviet effort.

Go forward another two decades and the Englishman sees that his country is submerged under lakes of water.
My Martian friend smiles as he knows why this is.

And as an addendum to this, I did indeed try very hard with a Russian friend to convince the factory to sell just the eyepieces and avoid all this waste. Engineering drawings were made et cetera but to no avail.

Interesting tale Binastro. Such a waste of all those prisms and parts.