• 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 Techno-Stabi 14x40 (1 Viewer)

B

Binastro

Well-known member
The Beast from the East (Kamakura?).

This ancient mariner thought that the weight would be just too much, but the binocular is not that bad, although heavy.

The binocular is used, maybe well used.
It comes from a yachting location and the shop says the rubber had gone white in places, but they seem to have done good job cleaning off the white and only small traces remain.

These are initial remarks.
The observations may not relate to a brand new example.

Shining a bright torch through the binocular it is fairly clean, but with small fine dust slightly visible, more on one side than the other. Much less than many used Nikon lenses.
Many people would probably not even notice this.

Multicoated with two cemented surfaces in the front and maybe one cemented surface at the rear of each barrel.

I had to adjust the dioptre and focus on my target 120m away.
The IPD adjustment is stiff.
Although specs and markings say 60 to 70mm, I suspect it goes to just under 60mm.

First stabilized view steady, but slight motion. Makes me a bit seasick.

AFOV much narrower than the 15 plus year old Canon 18x50 IS.
This is immediately apparent.

The binocular comes in a clamshell case.
Binocular marked Made in Japan.

I think the Nikons are similar with maybe an extra stabilization mode.

To be continued all being well.
 
With the side strap removed and without the neckstrap the Fujinon weighs 1278g including 4 AAs.

The Canon 18x50 IS with 2 AAs weighs 1195g.

The Fujinon has a rain guard for the eyepieces but no objective covers.

The Fujinon is a bit more complicated with two switches and red, orange and green LEDs?

I wanted to wash off the remaining white on the rubber, but no water.
I reported a water leak from the pavement almost 6 weeks ago.
The water company turned up the next day but said it was the mains leaking that belonged to another company. I rang the second water company the next week, they said it is not ours, definitely the first company.

3 weeks ago the first company rang and asked how did we do with fixing the problem. I said you didn't.

This morning 2 vans arrived and 3 men dug up the pavement. After 6 hours I just went out and asked when the water will be back. Soon.

What's the problem?
The spindle of the tap is broken.

Talk about water shortage in the world. Probably a few Olympic swimming pools of water lost.

It is our first warm day lovely sunshine, 2/8s cumulus, cirrus 25,000 ft. 20C. 68F.
Hopefully this evening I can wash the rubber down.

Will continue later.
 
The Fujinon has a very nice clean bright image in good light.
The Canon 18x50 IS has more CA particularly near the edges of a much wider AFOV. It is also bright in good light.
The Canon also displays some false colour when the variprisms are away from central. I haven't noticed this in the Fujinon.
The compensation angle of the Fujinon may be 5 degrees compared to 0.7 or 1.0 degrees with the Canon.

However, the Canon has much better resolution due to the higher magnification.
The Fujinon has slight jitters whereas the Canon is very steady, but I have used the Canon for more than 15 years, and may need to learn how to hold the Fujinon.

It would be better to compare the Fujinon with a Canon 15x50 IS.

The field of the Fujinon is probably a genuine 4.0 degrees. The Canon is measured at 3.85 degrees, wider than specs.

I probably need to start eating spinach if I use the Fujinon regularly.

The exterior lens surfaces need cleaning a bit with Baader Optical Wonder fluid. I am glad the shop didn't try to overclean.

Early days, but the Fujinon looks promising.

The mains water leak is hopefully repaired after almost 8 hours.
At least I can make a nice cup of tea now.
 
The Fujinon seems to have offset roof prisms and no tripod socket.

The Canon Porroprisms and a tripod socket on the bottom.

The Canon is 50mm aperture, the Fujinon 40mm. A big difference.
 
First test of Fujinon at night near streetlight.
Flare and ghosting control is very good, but the Canon 18x50 IS may be better.

I will try further tests.

One strange thing is that when the Fujinon is switched off for a long time, switching it on produces a completely out of focus image, possibly minimum distance focus.
One must focus again.
I don't know if this is normal.

I also don't know if the binocular will work with Eneloops or throwaway lithium batteries.
Does anybody here know what batteries it can take?
 
Saw Jupiter was bright although low, no cloud, but transparency only fair. Severe light pollution.

00.25 to 00.29 BST this morning.
Elevation 17 degrees.
Jupiter near maximum size and brightness. Magnitude minus 2.3.

Fujinon 14x40.
Surprised to see one bright moon only, Ganymede, to right of disc.

Got Canon 18x50 IS.
Saw that near Ganymede was fainter Callisto.

On left, not seen in Fujinon, Io and Europa seen as a fairly close pair some way from the limb.

Then with Fujinon I could see some of the difficult moons, just.

The positioning of the moons was difficult and the Canon is superior here. The only better hand held binocular is the Zeiss 20x60S and possibly a Russian 20x50 if it works.

The Canon shows stars 0.5 mag or 60% fainter than the Fujinon.

The Fujinon has weird sickly movements when moving Jupiter near the edge of the field.
I think that the Canon edge performance is better and there are no weird movements.

If I had a tank, helicopter or yacht I might prefer the Fujinon. As I don't, I prefer the Canon, even though in daylight the Fujinon has a purer image.

For looking at mermaids, either binocular is fine.

The Canon sometimes has some false colour but the Canon has 30% or 40% better resolution than the Fujinon, and I prefer to see more, rather than just have pure images.

Weight of Fujinon with batteries, side strap, neck strap, rainguard and clamshell case 1594g.

Weight of Canon 18x50 IS with batteries, strap, eyecup covers and soft case 1349g.

So although the Fujinon is only 7% heavier in use, when carrying it is almost 20% heavier although the Fujinon case is more protective.

24C now, summer weather, very sunny, some cirrus.
 
Last edited:
Hi Binastro,

thanks for the review - I once had the opportunity to compare a Fujinon 14x40 vs a Canon 15x50 side by side and with the examples I had it was no comparison.
Main gripes with the Fuji was the half a deg less tfov, slightly constricted afov, not sharp to the edge, and the less steady view (and it took some time to get up to speed).

Good on a boat or in car though...

Joachim
 
Hi, I had both the Fujinon and Canon 15x50 for years. The Fujinon did not get used because it takes a while for the gyro or whatever to warm up and stabilize. The Canon is ready to view immediately when you turn on the IS. The Fujinon takes too long if I wanted to check out a boat, plane or helicopter passing by.

But, for what the Fujinon is intended I think it was great. I think the IS was much more steady and it's built like a piece of military hardware. I sold the Fujinon on ebay this year and I think I had it for 8 or 9 years.
 
Yesterday the Fujinon didn't take long to warm up, it was 28C.

Even when cooler it only takes perhaps 3 seconds, so no problem for me.

I am not sure if it eventually shuts down, but a red light came on when I left it a while.

I think it advisable to detach the battery pack if not using it as alkalines can and do leak. I don't know if it takes throwaway lithium AAs or Eneloops. No instructions included.

I always wanted to try a Fujinon or Nikon, but too expensive just for a test.

However, this example with batteries, straps, rainguard and case, and 6 months shop warranty cost £120 delivered.
Good value I think for a fancy piece of glass.
I don't know how long it will last, but not concerned at the price paid.
 
Thats a good price for one of those Binastro, cant go wrong really, thanks for the review, like you I have always wanted to try a Fuji IS but put off by the price.
 
Although the specs say the IPD range is 60-70mm, the measured range is 56mm to 73mm on this example.

I put in some fresh 20 year lithium AAs, expire December 2035.
Hmm!

They are lighter than the perhaps half used Duracells included.
The lithiums are made in Singapore and say don't expose to water.

But I noticed an oscillation, at a guess around 7Hz, when viewing my test target.
I put back the Duracells.
I noticed the oscillations with these also, perhaps less amplitude.

I am susceptible to flutter etc.
I used to easily see T.V. flicker with side vision, even 100Hz, and I sometimes see the kitchen fluorescent tube flicker.
I don't think that many people do, but I am not sure.

I have noticed oscillations similar to the Fujinon with one of the Canon 8x25 IS, but this was not disturbing as very small amplitude.

I must try further.

It may be that this well used Fujinon has some mechanical wear, perhaps in the giros.
I suppose samples all vary, and may depend on which technician tuned them. The Canon IS are variable.
 
Binastro,

I have tried out the Fujinons only once or twice, the same with the similar Nikon 12x36 stabilised, and with both of these models, every time there has been a visible jitter in the image that was disconcerting. These were shop samples. Either unused or just lightly demoed.

For me, this jitter was worse than the prism artefacts sometimes seen in Canon IS bins. In my current 10x42 L IS, the artefacts are low enough to not bother me anymore.

Kimmo
 
Thanks Kimmo,

Yes the jitters I see are I think the same as you describe, but possibly a bit worse than if I tried a new example.
They may possibly not be noticed on a moving boat or by a helicopter observer.

However, for £120 this one is good value, even just to see how it behaves.

The basic image of the Fujinon is very good, but the Canons are for me a better binocular.

I also don't bother with the artifacts sometimes seen in the various Canon IS binoculars. It is the detail that they reveal that is important to me, and which is not seen with ordinary hand held binoculars, however good they may be optically.

I would like to try the Russian stabilised 20x50 and the rumoured 25x56.
I think I would see faults despite the glowing self reviews.
Apparently they are not good when pointed up and it wouldn't surprise me if they are vignetted.
But at $3,000, no thanks.
I might buy a used one with 6 months shop warranty at £200.
 
Last night in a transparent sky the Fujinon showed Earthshine on a 50% illuminated moon.
The best binoculars even show it with a 60% illuminated moon depending on Earth cloud cover.

If the magnification is a nominal 14x in the centre field, at the edge the magnification is 12x.The half moon looks good at the edge but considerably smaller.

The eyepieces are almost rectilinear. There is a very small amount of pincushion distortion at the field edge.
There is some CA near the field edge.

The adverts say the Fujinon Stabiscope, the more expensive version was used on the space shuttle and by NASA. It may be that the giro stabilisers work better in weightless conditions. At least the cheaper version giro stabiliser is not that good with normal gravity, at least for my viewing.

It is possible that some of the various Canon IS systems don't work at all in weightless conditions. The switch off after ten seconds when the binoculars are pointing down probably doesn't work, and the systems may need gravity.


The British Purma Plus camera with a gravity shutter and 3 shutter speeds depending which way it is held, wouldn't work. It is square format.
 
With 4 Eneloop white AA batteries the stabiliser in the Fujinon 14x40 seems to work the same as with alkalines or lithiums, despite being 1.2v nominally instead of 1.5v.

The disturbing oscillations of the image both centrally and at the edge seem to be similar. The edge oscillations may seem worse because side vision is more affected by movement.

These oscillations may slightly reduce resolution and are tiring to my eyes.

The weight with the 4 Eneloops is 1284g instead of 1278g with the Duracells.

It may be that on a yacht these oscillations would be overlooked, but I don't know.
I cannot ignore them with my normal targets.

It may be that a new Fujinon would be better than this used example, but Kimmo suggests that the jitters are seen in the Fujinon and Nikon stabilised binoculars even when new.
 
Fujinon 14x40 weights.

Binocular without battery pack 1150g.
With empty battery pack 1182g.
With lithium batteries 1241g.
With Duracells 1278g.
With Eneloops white 1284g.

I have left the lithium batteries in at 1241g, about 44oz.

The amplitude of the oscillations is at a guess about 0.5 arcminutes. I'll try to fix this more accurately.
About 7Hz?
The amplitude would need to be about 1/10th as much to be acceptable to view without strain and to be unnoticed.

Both the Canon 18x50 IS and some other Canons don't need the button held down.
Same with the Fujinon.
So this is better than some stabilised systems such as the Zeiss 20x60S and smaller Canons.

The eye relief on the Fujinon may be more than the Canons, so this means glasses wearers may be able to use it.

I would place the Fujinons one class below the Canons, except that the Fujinons may be better at sea or in earth orbit.

With the stabiliser off the image is very unsteady for me, so the stabiliser works but is not very good for astronomy or birdwatching.
 
Last edited:
There is an underlying oscillation of about 15 arcseconds amplitude due to the Fujinon stabilising system.
It seems to be in several directions. Like some kind of vibration approx. 7 times a second.
It cannot be controlled by the user.

This would need to be reduced to about 3 arcseconds to be usually unnoticed.

On top of this is a slower larger wandering due to hand movement perhaps one per second.
This can be controlled and reduced by holding the binocular very steady.

When the binocular is switched on there are very large image movements which damp down in about two or three seconds.

The initial large focus changes have not repeated, but the binocular does not hold focus well and has to be adjusted when switching on.

It is unlike the Canon 18x50 IS where I didn't refocus for ten years.

I cannot hear the giros after a few seconds.

I haven't got a cutaway drawing of the Fujinon 14x40. This would be useful to see how it works.
 
Thanks for the reports Binastro. For some years I have been thinking of this model. Needing a high-x binocular, I preferred this over the Canon and Nikon IS models, for certain personal reasons and the ability to stabilize across a larger angle of movement. One thing that put me off was the lack of proper (gas-purged) waterproofing. But it was provided very recently (about a year back?). This thread has been very useful, mostly on the negative aspects of the model, and I will continue to look in here. Good luck with your purchase!
 
It may be that the giros and stabiliser are tunable and examples differ depending on which technician set them up.

This is a well used example so a new one may have less annoying oscillations.
I would estimate that the resolution is reduced by 10% because of these oscillations.
I don't have any real way of estimating the frequency, so 7 per second is a best guess.

The amplitude is fairly easy as I look at a chimney pot 120m away and examine the British house bricks c.1930 and the mortar to see how much image movement there is.

For a sailor the binocular would be good to identify a vessel or a vessel's name as this is done quickly.
This example would not be good for extended observation.

The brick shaped short body is difficult to hold steady.
I think that my Russian 12x45 would outresolve it with the stabiliser off. The 12x45 easily outresolves a Nikon 10x35 EII.

There is no sign of mistiness internally, but there is fine dust, which seems strange, perhaps from internal paint?
Most people would think it very good internally, but I use a bright torch. It is not as new.

I thought of putting the strap on and wrapping it around one elbow as I did with my Minolta film cameras and rifle shooting, but I haven't bothered yet. The strap has to be exactly the right length for best stability.

When I am tired the binocular moves more.
One really needs big hands to actually grasp it properly.

I hope to try it against the Canon 10x42, which I suspect is better image wise.

The best stabilised binocular I know of is the Zeiss 20x60S, perhaps somewhat under one class better than the Canons. It has superb central resolution, but a curved field. The button has to be held down. I don't suppose it is waterproof and it is heavy.
 
Canon 10x42 IS compared to Fujinon 14x40.

7pm BST overcast dull day after rain, drizzle and easterly wind. Top temp today 8C, 10days ago 28C. Central heating on. Not raining, 7C now.

Both binoculars are similar in size but the Canon is easier to hold as the Fujinon is deeper and box like.
The Canon is not as heavy.

I am surprised to find that the resolution of the Fujinon is better than the Canon, despite the much brighter image in the Canon. My pupils probably more than 4.2mm. The 14x magnification shows finer detail than 10x.
At least in brighter detail. Perhaps in shadow there is less advantage for the Fujinon.

The field of the Canon is much larger. 6.55~ deg compared to 4.05~ deg.

The Canon image is steadier, only the slightest trace of movement.
However, the oscillations of the Fujinon in poor light are less noticed than in good light, and I could probably learn to ignore them in poor light.

My eyes are a bit tired, but the differences are obvious.

It may be that aboard a yacht the movement would mask the Fujinon stabiliser imperfections.

I think that some sailors have used various Canon IS binoculars successfully.

A quick comparison, but I found it useful and interesting.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Similar threads

D
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
yarrellii
Sky Rover 8x30 ED first (underwhelming) impressions
Replies
11
Views
2K
gcole
G
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
586
Scott98
S
F
Kite APC 16x42 … gimmick, replacement or addition? (my report)
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
fazalmajid
fazalmajid
dorubird
Swarovski Swarovision EL 8x32 vs Nikon Monarch HG 8x30
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
Owlbarred
Owlbarred

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top