• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

FUJINON HC (Hyper-Clarity) new roof prism binos (1 Viewer)

Patudo

Well-known member
BF 4 is an exploded version of a currently popular binocular. It shows 173 parts, almost every one, plastic. Where to you think it will be in 20 years, tops?

Keeping track of how this "currently popular model" does over the next twenty years would be a little easier if you'd deigned to actually mention what it was... but having done a little amateur sleuthing, I think (...do get your arteries ready...:cat:) it would not be a total surprise if said binocular was in fact able to give 20 years of service to the average weekend/holiday birder. But we can confer on that in 20 years' time...

I know folks have delighted in being Luddite since before John Ludd was a twinkle in his father's eye. But (and it seems almost ridiculous to have to say this) ask any mariner if he'd like to go back to navigating by chart and compass, or an air force ground crewman whether they'd prefer their pilots to fight in F-22s or Spitfires. Likewise (...got your arteries ready again?...), not many folks who know what they are doing - or even those who don't, but are given the opportunity to try both - would choose Mr O'Gara's 84-year old Zeiss, lovely though it is, in preference to the "currently popular model" for the job of finding and identifying birds. And hey... but for the marvellous complexity of your computer, you'd be able to broadcast your opinions only to those fortunate few whom you could reach by print or by voice, instead of all over the far reaches of the internet...

PS. Pray tell us which of the "almost every" parts in BF 4 are plastic... and why exactly plastic is a poor choice for the purpose that part is intended to fulfil? You've got more experience working on binoculars than all the rest of us put together, we're fully cognizant of that - so go on, enlighten us...
 

dries1

Member
I guess no more info on the Fuji until November, until then enjoy the views before everything goes gray and brown with some white mixed in, we all know what is coming.

Andy W.
 

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
PS. Pray tell us which of the "almost every" parts in BF 4 are plastic... and why exactly plastic is a poor choice for the purpose that part is intended to fulfil? You've got more experience working on binoculars than all the rest of us put together, we're fully cognizant of that - so go on, enlighten us...

Metal is reassuring and strong, but certainly there are durable plastics that will last a long time. I see birders I know with the same cheaper Nikons or Vortex binos that they have been using for years. Probably quite a bit of plastic pieces in those. The housing is usually plastic in cheaper bins. My original Swaro CL
has a plastic bridge and I think the housing may be plastic too. The new CL has metal housing and bridge. Lots of household appliance with plenty of plastic pieces. My cheap microwave is about 13 years old and has plastic timer knob and door as well as other bits. It's still going fine. I do take good care of my things. I've always been this way. Some people abuse their equipment and need them to be as durable as possible. But really if people take good care of their optics there shouldn't usually be any issues.
 

WJC

Well-known member
Keeping track of how this "currently popular model" does over the next twenty years would be a little easier if you'd deigned to actually mention what it was... but having done a little amateur sleuthing, I think (...do get your arteries ready...:cat:) it would not be a total surprise if said binocular was in fact able to give 20 years of service to the average weekend/holiday birder. But we can confer on that in 20 years' time...

I know folks have delighted in being Luddite since before John Ludd was a twinkle in his father's eye. But (and it seems almost ridiculous to have to say this) ask any mariner if he'd like to go back to navigating by chart and compass, or an air force ground crewman whether they'd prefer their pilots to fight in F-22s or Spitfires. Likewise (...got your arteries ready again?...), not many folks who know what they are doing - or even those who don't, but are given the opportunity to try both - would choose Mr O'Gara's 84-year old Zeiss, lovely though it is, in preference to the "currently popular model" for the job of finding and identifying birds. And hey... but for the marvellous complexity of your computer, you'd be able to broadcast your opinions only to those fortunate few whom you could reach by print or by voice, instead of all over the far reaches of the internet...

PS. Pray tell us which of the "almost every" parts in BF 4 are plastic... and why exactly plastic is a poor choice for the purpose that part is intended to fulfil? You've got more experience working on binoculars than all the rest of us put together, we're fully cognizant of that - so go on, enlighten us...


Ah, Patudo,

Having high blood pressure and already having had one stroke, I ALWAYS have my arteries prepared anytime I see a message from you, waiting. I don’t see you as wanting to raise the bar of understanding for yourself or others. But rather, make a point of challenging or attacking. But while explanations don’t seem to work well for you, I’ll spend more time trying to bring peace to the playground.

“Current popular model?” I don’t care what it is. Is that a sacrilege? Again, my comment was based on a track record of paying attention to binoculars and the industry that produces them. I always hope that negative comments I’ve made concerning any instrument are wrong. Too often, however, my thoughts have gelled into sad realities. I’ll let you have the last word on that since I won’t be around in 20 years.

Being Luddite: Often, pompous or shallow tinkers have an inclination to believe older folks are somehow frightened of new technology. That, however, seems built on the unwavering notion that newer is better. Like it or not that is frequently not so.

I find it interesting that you would drop back to OLD reasoning:

“Ask any mariner if he'd like to go back to navigating by chart and compass ...”

Using a modest GPS, you can watch your position on the globe change as you walk from one side of your vessel to the other. That’s fantastic! At least until it goes out somewhere between San Francisco and Honolulu, and it HAS HAPPENED. The OLD TECHNOLOGY sextant (properly repaired and collimated) CAN never go out. And those with enough sense to understand how it works can steer a reliable course ... every time. And NOAA charts have long been available, digitally. They are infinitely more convenient, in so many ways, than paper charts. But, once again they are dependent on electronics. I’ve written for 18 marine magazine titles—have been a staple with Dockside and Latitudes & Attitudes—and all those publishers seem to think I know what I’m talking about—‘got a piece coming out soon in SAILING. I guess I have them fooled, huh?

My arteries are holding up just fine.

“... not many folks who know what they are doing - or even those who don't, but are given the opportunity to try both - would choose Mr O'Gara's 84-year old Zeiss, lovely though it is, in preference to the "currently popular model" for the job of finding and identifying birds.”

Mathematically you are absolutely correct!!! And I certainly know where you’re coming from. But you must be a younger fellow because you continue missing the bigger picture. That bigger picture, as I have proffered MANY TIMES, involves individual physiological aspects. In that case, you are absolutely ... wrong.

Would you presume to tell Michael how foolish he is for his choice? Don’t you think that’s a bit pompous?! By the way, my “amateur sleuthing” tells me you have access to a Nikon WX. Like the Nikon that is featured in this thread, would I be wrong for sharing my thoughts concerning its arrival in the market? But wait, the old guy wasn’t wrong ... again.

PS. Pray tell us ... so go on, enlighten us...

I sure wish you didn’t feel the need to be incessantly snotty with me.

Plastic is a totally adequate material for certain parts of binoculars. But one need not be a Rhodes Scholar to see that having 6.18 times as many parts as the mentioned Zeiss constitutes an overkill with production requiring more money which will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer. But then, I’m sure—that makes no sense to the DISCONTINUED WX brigade.

A Story—Please bear with me; it’s a tiny bit off-color and I haven’t found the time to water it down in such a way as to allow it to keep its importance:

An old bull is leisurely munching grass on a hilltop overlooking the barnyard when a young bull-calf bounces up to him and excitedly announces that they should RUN down the hill and make love to a beautiful heifer. The old bull raises his head slowly and looks for a second at the yearling, who is still bouncing and vibrating, before turning back to the grass.

Frustrated, the yearling raises his voice and says, “How about it, how about it; ‘you game?”

At that point, the old bull raises his head and says, “Let’s WALK down the hill and make love to several beautiful heifers.”

Read into that what you will, but know I am still wanting to be a friend. Know also that your challenges or attacks say much more about your aggressive, contrary, and often ill-informed agenda than it does about me and mine.

If you will excuse me now, there’s a fellow in Georgetown, Texas who wants me to get to the repair of his 8x30 Leitz Binuxit.
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
So plastic is OK for some parts, but complexity can bring problems of its own. That seems a straightforward and clear observation. But complexity in this case brings some advantages compared with the lovely old Zeiss: centre-focusing, inert-gas sealing to prevent fogging, a high eye-point (ER) to help spectacle wearers and adjustable eye-cups to go with it, not to mention the rain-guard and two objective covers that presumably got counted too.

However I still have my grandfather's WWII Kershaw Porros that weigh a ton, have graticules, and feel like they could stop a steam train if you hurled them at it. It will still be functioning when I am not, but I never take it birding and have relied on the over-complicated models for around 50 years.

Lee
 

WJC

Well-known member
So plastic is OK for some parts, but complexity can bring problems of its own. That seems a straightforward and clear observation. But complexity in this case brings some advantages compared with the lovely old Zeiss: centre-focusing, inert-gas sealing to prevent fogging, a high eye-point (ER) to help spectacle wearers and adjustable eye-cups to go with it, not to mention the rain-guard and two objective covers that presumably got counted too.

However I still have my grandfather's WWII Kershaw Porros that weigh a ton, have graticules, and feel like they could stop a steam train if you hurled them at it. It will still be functioning when I am not, but I never take it birding and have relied on the over-complicated models for around 50 years.

Lee

201013

Lee,

You are such a bloody diplomat!

Of course, IF all those things perform as the should ... and last as they need to in a DISPOSABLE economy ... life is good. But do you really think all those parts are needed to provide what you spoke of as features? If you do, I have a fantastic deal for you on some oceanfront property just northwest of Wichita, Kansas.

Of course, I’m just kidding ... a little. Now, for the Fujinon. There are 8 classes of waterproof in the JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards). Which does this bino have? Do you know? I don’t.

Serving the Navy, Coast Guard, NOAA, the Merchant Marine, and Alaskan fishing fleet, my optics department sold more Fujinon IS binoculars that probably any store north of San Diego. But although I am (and was) a huge Fujinon fan, I stopped carrying their Techno-Stabi because too many were being returned because of water getting into their “watertight” battery compartment. In several cases, the saltwater had corroded the copper terminals in two. And I got tired of hearing, “Just sent it in for our experts to check” ... as if I was not smart enough to tell a corroded terminal when I saw one. My customer needed a new instrument without having to wait for the shipment to their “experts” to verify what this “Premier Fujinon dealer” already knew.

Thus, as always, I will be hopeful. However, I will wait for all the votes to be counted. :cat:

Bill
 

Patudo

Well-known member
“Current popular model?” I don’t care what it is. Is that a sacrilege?

Given that you've stated, with such apparent authority, that:

BF 4 is an exploded version of a currently popular binocular. It shows 173 parts, almost every one, plastic.

... then it would seem only reasonable that you ought to be able to tell us what this "currently popular" model is. You may not care what it is, but you ought to know what it is. Indeed, before make such a pronouncement, one probably ought to be able to inform us just which of the "almost every one" of those 173 parts are plastic.

Do you? Can you? :cat:

Being Luddite: Often, pompous or shallow tinkers have an inclination to believe older folks are somehow frightened of new technology. That, however, seems built on the unwavering notion that newer is better. Like it or not that is frequently not so.

One might just as glibly say that folks of a certain age have a tendency to wallow in nostalgia and decry the improvements that technology and yes, its attendant complexity, have enabled - often, amusingly enough, propounding those opinions via products designed well within the last half century, and that yet, somehow, work more than well enough to make their users heard...

Let me ask you again, how many sailors contemplating the passage you mentioned - San Francisco to Honolulu - would willingly deny themselves the benefit of modern technological complexity, unless said passage was undertaken as a test of traditional navigational skill? Sure, they'll have a sextant available, and might well plot their positions on a paper chart in case the worst happens, but I'll bet most of them would gladly sacrifice a couple of casks of rum not to be deprived of their GPS unit(s)...

I’ve written for 18 marine magazine titles—have been a staple with Dockside and Latitudes & Attitudes—and all those publishers seem to think I know what I’m talking about—‘got a piece coming out soon in SAILING. I guess I have them fooled, huh?

Congratulations. Care to tell us how many of those articles cover, say, making a passage from San Francisco to Honolulu?

But you must be a younger fellow because you continue missing the bigger picture. That bigger picture, as I have proffered MANY TIMES, involves individual physiological aspects. In that case, you are absolutely ... wrong.

...physiological aspects such as the desirability of smaller and lighter binoculars, and the need for many users to wear eyeglasses - which, taken together, mean that you could go birding with a hundred, or even a thousand birders and not find a single one using a binocular like Mr O'Gara's. If the "bigger picture" is the sum of those individual decisions, just who is "absolutely ... wrong"?

Oh, and since you seem to know "Michael" so well - maybe you could tell us if he actually uses them much, and if so, for what purpose?

Plastic is a totally adequate material for certain parts of binoculars. But one need not be a Rhodes Scholar to see that having 6.18 times as many parts as the mentioned Zeiss constitutes an overkill with production requiring more money which will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer.

I won't pretend to know just how many parts are needed to make a binocular that can do what the "currently popular model" can do. I don't need to be a Rhodes scholar, though, to know that to do so will inevitably require more (and probably a good many more) than 28 parts. The same point, that more parts for a more complex design require more money, could be applied to Galilean versus porro binoculars - would you favour the simpler design in that case?

As to the expense thereof, that's between the manufacturer and the consumer - but that is as it always was, even in the days of the 28-part Zeiss (which probably represented a bigger chunk of the average working man's monthly wage back in its era than an "alpha", much less the "currently popular model", does now).


PS. and if you feel that expressing your opinion on the WX might help ease your arteries, by all means feel free - that's what forums are for. Although, Cloudy Nights seems to have more folks who actually use the things, so your opinions might reach a more appropriate audience there...
 

binomania

Well-known member
Hi Guys. Fujifilm Italia will send me a specimen in the next days. I will inform you. Kind Regards
Pier
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Price Point - Performance Expectation - for HC Models

Clifton Cameras in the UK has the 8x42 and 10x42 models listed at £749 and £799 respectively
They are an official Fujinon retailer, and expected availability is from 20th November
See at: https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/fujinon-binoculars-sporting-optics

Other x42 models listed by Clifton at around the same price are:
- Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 £799
- Leica Trinovid HD 8x42 £835
- Leica Trinovid HD 10x42 £869

£749 and £799 convert to around US $980 and $1050
(as yet the HC's are not listed in the US by B&H Photo or Adorama)


John
 
Last edited:

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
Clifton Cameras in the UK has the 8x42 and 10x42 models listed at £749 and £799 respectively
They are an official Fujinon retailer, and expected availability is from 20th November
See at: https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/fujinon-binoculars-sporting-optics

Other x42 models listed by Clifton at around the same price are:
- Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 £799
- Leica Trinovid HD 8x42 £835
- Leica Trinovid HD 10x42 £869

£749 and £799 convert to around US $980 and $1050
(as yet the HC's are not listed in the US by B&H Photo or Adorama)


John

Thanks John ... will be interesting to see how it compares to the other 42 models in the same price range.
It should be made in Japan I would think.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Hi Beth,

Yes, it does seem that they’ll be made in Japan. See a stock image of the rear of the 8x42 - along with a closeup of the markings - from:
https://www.yarkiy.ru/goods/40350-fujinon-hc8x42


John
John - speaking of detailed close ups - have you seen the (what I assume to be sponsored content) Zeiss thread where there is a QR code with all of that particular unit's manufacturing settings and results at a component level.

Is there anything like that on these Fuji's ? (or any other bin you have seen).





Chosun 🙅
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Hi CJ,

No I've not seen that, nor am I aware of any similar level of detail

I seem to remember noticing that Zeiss is using QR code links on some pages on their site, instead of just directly linking to the content
But I didn't bother following up on the links

Do you have a link to where the QR code is?


John
 
Last edited:

Kevin Conville

yardbirder
I'd really like to try a pair of the HC 8x42s and compare them to my 8x42 MHGs. They'd be an impressive set of $800 bins if they could best the Nikons, but I am at least as much a believer in Fuji as I am Nikon.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Hi CJ,

No I've not seen that, nor am I aware of any similar level of detail

I seem to remember noticing that Zeiss is using QR code links on some pages on their site, instead of just directly linking to the content
But I didn't bother following up on the links

Do you have a link to where the QR code is?


John
John - there was a section in the Binocular forum called "Zeiss Stories".
It appears locked or inaccessible now.

There was at least 8 threads on various topics when I quickly glanced the other day. Some quite useful information on a number of things.

One of the threads contained information on the Zeiss manufacturing process. It was quite current leading manufacturing technology. I was actually a bit surprised - you would think that if the company processes are that advanced, that they could come up with some better quality eyecups ! 😁

Basically (from memory) the guts of the thread was that each component group /sub assembly had manufacturing setting/calibration/test results recorded at each step of the assembly process. Perhaps even for the final unit too. It is usual for these components/steps to be tied to the Bill of Materials and ISO systems.

This was all recorded via a QR code which was laser etched under the eye cups somewhere. Apparently some of this information was available to be read by the consumer, and presumably other parts reserved for technicians if servicing the units etc.

This should be (or will be) initiated on at least the SF 32mm. It would be good if someone with one of these could confirm in the appropriate thread, read, and post the details.

In the pictures posted of this new Fuji I couldn't see any QR codes, so perhaps this is an area where Zeiss is leading the Industry.

I have a feeling it won't help the Conquest in comparison with this new Fuji though 😉

I'm figuring the optics would want to be rather good, as the ergonomics, styling, and weight appear a bit brick like.





Chosun 🙅
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Hi again CJ,

With the degree of computerised control of production processes used by Zeiss and others,
I’m not surprised that level of data recording in relation to the production of each unit takes place

And thinking about it, I’d be surprised if other high-end manufacturers don't make use of such a capability,
since it's inherently present in the electronically controlled and monitored systems that they use

While scanning a unique QR code for each unit provides maximum convenience for data retrieval,
a keyed serial number could of course be used
So other manufacturers will almost certainly be doing the same, though without using a QR code for retrieval

- - - -

Looking at the B&H site, the HC's do have a slight price advantage over the x42 Conquests
Though as you say, the optical expectations are going to be high


John
 
Last edited:

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
I'd really like to try a pair of the HC 8x42s and compare them to my 8x42 MHGs. They'd be an impressive set of $800 bins if they could best the Nikons, but I am at least as much a believer in Fuji as I am Nikon.
Even if the Fuji is a little better optically than the MHG, the Nikon will still be very attractive for its lower weight and nice ergonomics. The Fuji is a bit heavy if the listed specs are accurate. I do like the sort of old style appearance of the Fuji; nice and compact as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top