Big "eyes" and high magnification models (1 Viewer)

[MBS]

Hello,

I am asking myself a question about the best wide objectives and high magnification (at least x 8 or x 10 times), however preserving a large exit pupil (between 6 mm and 7 mm), and with a good crepuscular factor (so, allowing low light conditions use), amongst all the waterproof binocular models available today?

I assume that 10 x 70 mm (Fujinon or Nikon) models are to mention...

And also, 8 x 56 mm Zeiss one (if manufactured nowadays)...

Are there any other ones?

By

 

[MBS]

Hello,

In my previous message, I forgot to mention the 9 x 63 mm Zeiss model !

According to some HTML pages, read on binocular sites, the 10 x 70 mm (or the 16 x 70 mm) Fujinon seems to be the best choice, with optical and mecanical qualities being near or equal to Nikon and Zeiss equivalent (10 x 70 mm Nikon, 8x 56 mm and 9 x 63 mm Zeiss), but with a lower price to pay. So, a better "quality versus cost" ratio.

The only drawback of Fujinon, this is its focusing adjustement one ocular after the other.

Not very important at sea, but more annoying than the central fosusing, for mammal woodland observations or birds in marsh (all at dawn or dusk), or observations in meadows (during full moon nights).



Now, I have an other questionning about Fujinon options : 10 x 70 mm or 16 x 70 mm?

With the first one, I get a better exit pupil (7 mm) an a clearer image, with a wider field of view.



With the second one, I get a smaller exit pupil (4, 7 mm), a darker image, a narrow field of view.

But I get also a higher crepuscular factor. So, theoretically, I will enjoy a better vision of small details (due to the fact that, in low light, the maximal definition of our eyes goes down, needing a better magnification of the binocular to try to compensate for this "handicap").



Of course, with a 16 x 112 mm, I will be winning on the two sides (crepuscular factor AND exit pupil), but such a model, in addition to its price, will not be very "user friendly" in the field, during walking...



All advices will be received with great interest and gratitude (at nearly 700 euros, I do not have the right to make mistakes).

By

 

[Fernando np]

Hi,
I think what you're looking for isn't properly taken in count in the present day market. The offer is limited. How the Zeiss 15X60 are more expensive now than when they were in production might be thinking food. In my dreams Nikon'd decide to make a 12X60SE. For long periods of observation the relaxed view the Classic 8X56 can give you is among my favourites. It isn't a trivial fact they've seen the births and deads of other Zeiss models which, in theory, might be their succesors. The astronomical bins, apart of his weight, have a long minimus focusing distance and independent focusing. This last is important when your hands are cold. Under a certain level of light all extra power is usefulness. An unusual binocular with surprising performance at clear nights are the 7X40 of the former East Germany. They were built as porros (DF) or roofs (EDF). The latest, more difficult to find. Both are common in the second hand market, although I only would buy then after having a look trough.
Finally, in the middle prize, there's a Minox 13X56 with good online references.

 

[MBS]

Hello Fernando,

Thank you for your message, the information about classic 8 x 56 mm, and also about 7 x 40 ex-DDR and the Minox 13 x 56 mm (at about 600 euros they are still in my possible "financial range").

However, with 56 mm rather than 70 mm diameter, there is a x 1,56 difference in light collecting ability, between Leica and Fujnon models...

Let us wait for other comment and suggestion or other members.

By

 

[ceasar]

Nikon Monarch 8.5 x 56.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4531

Bob

 

[Kevin Conville]

The Fujinons, as you mention, are individual focus. Be sure you're OK with that.

I have a pair of the FMT-SX 16x70s that I primarily use for night sky but rarely use them for terrestrial use because I'd rather use a spotting scope for the tripod and weight tax they require, not to mention the hassle of IF. For extended viewing at distance they are enjoyable however and have quite good optics though quite prone to CA.

Because of their size and the relatively small bridge, I've always felt they are not very robust and have been very careful with mine so as not to knock them out of collimation. Not really field binoculars IMO.

They obviously don't meet your criteria of a 6-7mm exit pupil either, but they have a monstrously high (over 33) twilight factor!

 

[MBS]

The Fujinons, as you mention, are individual focus. Be sure you're OK with that.

I have a pair of the FMT-SX 16x70s that I primarily use for night sky but rarely use them for terrestrial use because I'd rather use a spotting scope for the tripod and weight tax they require, not to mention the hassle of IF. For extended viewing at distance they are enjoyable however and have quite good optics though quite prone to CA.

Because of their size and the relatively small bridge, I've always felt they are not very robust and have been very careful with mine so as not to knock them out of collimation. Not really field binoculars IMO.

They obviously don't meet your criteria of a 6-7mm exit pupil either, but they have a monstrously high (over 33) twilight factor!

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for this "user's report", about FMT-SX 16x70 binocular. I did't know that Fujinon high-end models could show such a CA problem, and also I thought they were mecanically rather more sturdy...

Perhaps, the 16x70 model is more prone to CA than the 10x70 model?

As regards the individual focusing option, I admit that this is a true potential problem, when using binocular in countryside, for wildlife observation, with fréquent modifications of focusing.

I this case there are Zeiss or Nikon options, but the price is doubling (compared with Fujinon).

By

 

[MBS]

Nikon Monarch 8.5 x 56.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4531

Bob

Hi Ceasar,

Sure, they could be an interesting alternative.

Is there any test or report accessible, about this model, on the net?

By

 

[Kevin Conville]

"I thought they were mecanically rather more sturdy..."

I'm not saying they're fragile, they're not. But if you look at them, it only makes sense to treat them gingerly. They are large, with the majority of their weight and bulk well in front of the bridge without support. They also have very large prisms that probably won't take shock well.

"Perhaps, the 16x70 model is more prone to CA than the 10x70 model?"

I'd say that's a safe bet as magnification exacerbates CA. To elaborate, they are pretty good on axis. Within a few degrees of that however (depending on the target of course) yellow or purple color starts to show. To have binos this size that are corrected to a degree that CA is nearly gone would be very expensive indeed.

"As regards the individual focusing option, I admit that this is a true potential problem, when using binocular in countryside, for wildlife observation, with fréquent modifications of focusing."

Though I'm not a fan of IF, one's technique does improve with use. The Fujinon's have calibration marks on the eyepieces that when you determine the difference in the settings for your eyes allows you to focus just one side then set the other side using the calibration marks. This speeds things up quite a bit and is quite accurate actually.

"In this case there are Zeiss or Nikon options, but the price is doubling (compared with Fujinon)."

True. I also wouldn't make any assumptions about the way those binos control CA either. You pretty much have to look through them to see for yourself.

The Fujinons are sharp, and have a very flat field of view. If the idea is to leave them on a tripod and use them for long distance extended viewing, then they may work well for you. If you are very sensitive to CA then I think you're likely to have a problem with any giant bino sans (maybe) Kowa, Takahashi, or Miyauchi Flourites. Those are WAY more expensive however.

 

[ceasar]

Hi Ceasar,

Sure, they could be an interesting alternative.

Is there any test or report accessible, about this model, on the net?

By

Very few of them! Here's one. http://reviews.pricegrabber.com/binoculars/m/17979787/

Bob

 

[MBS]

Hello,

Kevin, thank you for these interesting details about Fujinon.

Inded, I was trying to find a very good model (including low CA) under about 500 euros, but I am afraid of needing to jump up to the 1000 euros frontier, to obtain satisfaction (and even higher, for ED glasses).

Two years ago I bought 20 x 90 mm (chinese model) for about 200 euros. This model was with triplet objectives, and used for deep sky astronomy it was very good. When viewing the moon, things began to go bad, and for daytime viewing they went worse. Mainly due to CA, as soon as my pupils where not perfectly aligned with the optical axes and (or) if I looked at the peripheral of the image...

Ceasar, thank you for the URL !

By

 

[edz]

Hmmm. I find after years of use, the Fujinon FMT-SX is one of the most robust built binocular models on the market. I wrote a short story once a few years back of an incident that occured to me. I had my Fujinon 16x70 out at night on a fully extended tripod about 6 1/2 feet hi. I hooked my foot on one of the legs and the entire setup toppled to the ground, the 16x70s hitting the dirt full force. The collimation did not change one bit! Frankly I don't own any other binocular that I think would have withstood that fall.

edz

 

[Kevin Conville]

That's reassuring to hear edz!

For the record, I never said they were fragile, only that they being so large and having a relatively small bridge plus the large prisms made me concerned of their robustness.

 

[edz]

Just want to reassure MBS, the Fujinon FMT-SX series is probably one of the most mechanically sound and robust binoculars you could ever put your hands on.

edz

 

[MBS]

Just want to reassure MBS, the Fujinon FMT-SX series is probably one of the most mechanically sound and robust binoculars you could ever put your hands on.

edz

Hello,

Thank you for this opinion.

The fact remains that they are supposed to be prone to CA, according to Kevin message.

By