Anyone ever used Fujinon 14X40 IS binos? (1 Viewer)

This is my first post to the forum, so please treat me gently if I'm getting this in the wrong place.

I live on a lake where we get a wide variety of water foul. It is not unusual to be viewing birds from 200 yards or more, so I have an interest in higher powered binoculars that can be used handheld. As such, I'm curious if anyone has had any experience with the Fujinon 14X40 Techno-Stabi image stabilization binoculars? The owner reviews I've read on-line seem to be quite positive, but I couldn't find a single post here that refers to them.

Is there any reason I wouldn't want to use these for birding (aside from the obvious weight and somewhat narrow FOV)? Any feedback would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Dean

I only have second hand information, and you will get better answers later on. But most seem to think that Canons IS bins are superior to Fujinons. And It seems that those who try the Canon IS series seldom return to non-IS binoculars..

The Fujinon stabilization is apparently somewhat different from the Canon approach. Reports suggest it works best for stabilizing the view from an unsteady platform, such as a boat, whereas the Canon aims to offset hand tremors.
Certainly the Fujinon is a much more industrial product, more of a handful to hold and perhaps more rugged than the Canon consumer oriented offerings. This is reflected in the price asked.
If you are fortunate enough to be living on a lake with good views of the water, perhaps a good scope and tripod might be your happiest solution, as all the higher powered stabilized glasses are heavy and bulky to the point that just carrying them almost mandates a harness, while using them is really a weight lifting exercise.

Hi Dean,

Welcome to Birdforum!

I haven't seen the Fujinons, so I can't make a statement about these.
I have Canon 18x50 IS's and I love them despite them being quite heavy.
I agree with etudiant that a good scope on a sturdy tripod would give the best result, from a stationary position. It is the most comfortable way for prolonged viewing.
Only if you want to use both eyes, a stabilized bino might be easier, but you would have to find something to rest your arms on for longer periods or they would quickly become tiresome, handheld.
A binoviewer on a scope, or big aperture binoculars on a tripod, would also be more comfortable and allow viewing with both eyes.

If you intend to watch from your house you'd be best off with a tripod-mounted device.
The Canon 18x50 IS's ,however, can be tripod-mounted thanks to the screw thread installed on the underside. You'd have a choice to use them tripod-mounted, or handheld, just what suits you on any given moment.

I hope I helped you a little,

Best regards,

Ronald

Thanks to Kristoffer, Etudiant, and Ronald for your comments. I guess I should have mentioned that I already own a pair of Canon 10X42L IS binos and have tried the Canon 15X50s, but not the 18X50s. I'm very fond of my 10X42Ls, but I am put off by Canon's IS system in the higher powers. Personally, I can't deal with the IS fuzzies in the higher powered Canons. What's the point of focusing your binos to have the image become defocused when you turn on the image stabilization?

I don't have much desire to use a tripod due to the need to change positions frequently, and of course, a tripod isn't much use when a bird is in flight. I do frequently use a monopod, even with the Canons. My monopod setup gives me great flexibility as I can get aimed to a new location almost instantly.

I'm told that the Fujinon IS system doesn't have that pulsating, defocusing quality that the Canon's seem to possess in the higher magnifications (I've tried three different pairs of 15X50s, and they all exhibited this trait to varying degrees). I know the Fujis are heavy (another reason for a monopod), but my concerns (perhaps misplaced) with the Fuji relate to image quality as opposed to the effectiveness of the image stabilization. Thus, I am hoping that someone who has hands-on experience with the Fujinon will be able to enlighten me. I am particularly interested to know how much CA there is with the Fuji's.

Regards,
Dean

Since this thread died on the vine, I surmised that no one here had any actual experience with the Fujinons. So, I ordered a pair and tried them for myself. So, if you're interested, here's my assessment.

First, the IS at 14X is the best I have experienced--considerably more stable than the Canon 15X50 IS models I've tried. There is a tiny bit of jitter in the image with the IS turned on, but it doesn't defocus the image or make it fuzzy like the Canons oft times do. If I had been able to mount these on my monopod, I think most, if not all, of this jitter would have vanished. However, there is no tripod mount on these, though I do understand that a tripod adapter is available.

I was most pleased with the level of CA. Quite well controlled for a bino in this power range, and it paid off in terms of contrast. These had contrast performance that was at least as good as, if not better than, any pair of binos I've yet tried; including Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss. Colors were really well saturated, and subtle variations in colors were elucidated. This aspect of their performance was completely unexpected by me, despite Ken Rockwell's favorable comments in his review of this model. To my eyes, these two aspects of their performance were their greatest strengths. Given the "rest of the story", I have to wonder if the pair I received was defective.

I never could get a sharp focus. Every time it would start to go into focus, I would feel as though I needed to turn the focus wheel just a bit further and I'd be there; but when I would, it would go further OUT of focus. In addition, I could never achieve a good balance between the right and left oculars. They impressed me as having a small degree of astigmatism, perhaps more pronounced in the left ocular than the right; but whatever was causing the lack of sharpness, resolution, and clarity, became the deal breaker for me.

It probably goes without saying that the 2.86 mm exit pupil made the IPD adjustment critical, and this adjustment was incredibly stiff. One thing for sure, once this is set, it isn't going to go out of adjustment by itself. Even when adjusted optimally, the loss of light relative to bins with 4 mm or greater exit pupils was most noticeable--and disappointing.

The FOV was also very narrow, and I felt a little "tunnel visioned" when viewing objects within 150 yards or so. This was exacerbated by the ER not being sufficient to fully accommodate my wearing of eyeglasses with a full FOV. When I used them without glasses (I also wear contacts), the FOV was barely acceptable to me, though YMMV.

It cost me over $50 in shipping (both directions) to satisfy my curiosity about these. I think I would have kept them as my higher powered IS binocular of choice had it not been for the lack of sharpness, because the Image Stabilization and the contrast (along with very well controlled CA) were very much what I would want to have. Hopefully, my experience will save someone else the 50 plus dollars.

Dean

nice review. Can you turn off the IS function to get a sharper image with the Fujinon? I am curious whether it is limited by the IS electronics or the lens system itself.

Dean,
A very helpful review. Many thanks!
Surprised that sharpness was deficient. Fuji has a very long history of top notch optics, so this is the last thing one might expect. Defective sample, maybe?
How did you find the ergonomics, or was the experience too frustrating to get a good feel for that?

NWBirder said:

nice review. Can you turn off the IS function to get a sharper image with the Fujinon? I am curious whether it is limited by the IS electronics or the lens system itself.

Click to expand...

NWBirder,

All I can tell you is that there was no difference in sharpness between IS being on or off. That was one of its great virtues, IMHO.

In terms of overall sharpness, I didn't use anything as sophisticated as a resolution chart, but rather a Eucalyptus tree in back of my home that's right next to the lake. This tree has a branch that was sawed off years ago, and the remaining stub has dried out and has many fine (and some not so fine) cracks inside the circle as well as around the circle's perimeter. The tree is approximately 50 feet from my back patio. I use this feature of the tree to dial in the right eye diopter on all of my bins.

I have two other pairs of bins--Canon 10X42Ls and Nikon 8X32 SEs, and both, when properly focused, are capable of showing tremendous detail, revealing the multitude of tiny hairline cracks throughout the circle where the branch was sawed off. The Fujinons completely glossed over the finest of cracks which weren't even visible, and none of the larger cracks ever had a sharp, well-defined edge (the word "dull" comes to mind). Even the saw marks were soft, rounded and glossed over. Like I said, it was as though they couldn't ever reach focus. I really do have to believe that this unit was substandard in this respect.

Dean

etudiant said:

Dean,
A very helpful review. Many thanks!
Surprised that sharpness was deficient. Fuji has a very long history of top notch optics, so this is the last thing one might expect. Defective sample, maybe?
How did you find the ergonomics, or was the experience too frustrating to get a good feel for that?

Click to expand...

Thanks, Etudiant, though I don't know that I would call it a review as much as an impressions report. As one might discern, I'm not terribly technical, but I do see well.

Ergonomics? It has all the ergonomics of a brick with a handstrap. I actually like the handstrap, however, and the bins certainly had a rugged and solid feel. It would take a fair degree of getting used to the focus wheel being over on the right side. It's location is such that I was guilty of knocking it out of focus on more than one occasion, and this sample's focus wheel turned more easily than I would have preferred.

I also found that adjusting the right diopter often times resulted in the left eye going out of focus, so I don't know if I had inadvertently touched the focus wheel while attempting to adjust the rather stiff diopter adjuster, or if the act of adjusting the diopter actually knocked the center focus out of focus. I did find them challenging ergonomically.

Dean