New Fujinon TS-L 16x40 and TS-L 20x40 Image Stabilised Binoculars (2 Viewers)

[chibbert]

can I post videos on BF too?

I haven't post any IS bino reviews here because I have to show the stabilization result by video.

@jackjack have you done any video review of this yet? A link to your korean post would even be interesting

 

[jackjack]

@jackjack have you done any video review of this yet? A link to your korean post would even be interesting

½Ö¾È°æÀ¸·Î º¸´Â ¼¼»ó : ³×À̹ö Ä«Æä

cafe.naver.com

 

[jackjack]

½Ö¾È°æÀ¸·Î º¸´Â ¼¼»ó : ³×À̹ö Ä«Æä

cafe.naver.com

It seems I can't post video on this forum which means my reviews of stabilizer bino almost useless.

but, I can say 16x40 Technostabi is the best Stabilizer that Fujinon launched in case of birding usage.

and also, I highly prefer them over 50mm Canon IS during daytime because of much better color fidelity and CA correction

 

[chibbert]

It seems I can't post video on this forum which means my reviews of stabilizer bino almost useless.

but, I can say 16x40 Technostabi is the best Stabilizer that Fujinon launched in case of birding usage.

and also, I highly prefer them over 50mm Canon IS during daytime because of much better color fidelity and CA correction

Thanks, that is strange there're minimal video capability on the forum - you could upload to youtube and post link?

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

For the night sky would people prefer the 16x or 20x? Specifically how does the edge correction hold up in the fov of 3.4degree vs 4.2degrees? How significant is the brightness difference in these IS models? And how is the CA and ghosting on bright objects like the moon?

Thanks for all the observing reports.

 

[JanPB]

Download the catalogue. Interesting stuff.

Hermann

Looks like Fuji have fallen in the same stupid PR trap as Nikon: they started listing the "true" AFOV (which nobody cares about except a technician at an optical bench) instead of the "approximate" AFOV (which everyone uses and understands as it's simply the product of the FOV and the magnification). So, for example, the 20x40 has a 68-degrees AFOV, and nobody cares that on an optical bench it would be 61.4 degrees.

 

[henry link]

Looks like Fuji have fallen in the same stupid PR trap as Nikon: they started listing the "true" AFOV (which nobody cares about except a technician at an optical bench) instead of the "approximate" AFOV (which everyone uses and understands as it's simply the product of the FOV and the magnification). So, for example, the 20x40 has a 68-degrees AFOV, and nobody cares that on an optical bench it would be 61.4 degrees.

Fujinon does not measure the "true" AFOV at an optical bench. They use the ISO formula, which is no more accurate than the simple formula you prefer. Neither one takes the binocular's distortion profile into account.

Swarovski and Zeiss do measure the "true" AFOV, which almost always falls between the ISO and simple methods. It will be closer to the ISO figure if pincushion distortion is low and angular magnification distortion is high, closer to the simple figure if AMD is low and pincushion distortion is high.

 

[DRodrigues]

... And how is the CA and ghosting on bright objects like the moon?
...

See CN1 (including #98), and CN2

 

[iseegeorgesstar]

See CN1 (including #98), and CN2

Thank you. Finally some first hand field reports.