CN FORUMS ARCHIVE Telescope Reviews: Fujinon 10x50 FMT VS Nikon 10x42 SE

Steve,

Yes, indeed, your carpenTRY skills are better than my pipe-lagging cuttting (not that I even know what pipe-lagging is or the word "cuttting" for that matter, probably a Welsh word you picked up from Kenny :-).

If I'm doing my cipherin' right, the exit pupil of the SEs with the 2.5 aux. scope would be 1.68mm. Do you find the views dim? I remember how my XL Zooms dimmed at 16x with a 2.5mm exit pupil.

After some very oppressive days in the mid to high 90s (that's Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit degrees for those across the pond), with a heat index of 100+, we had a lot of rain today that washed away much of the moisture and pollen, dust, mold, gypsy moth poop, etc., and produced a very clear night (fairly dark too, being the middle of the week and no moon in the sky).

I couldn't stay out long since my farmer's hours neighbors and their farmer's hours guard dog came back from vacation today, and my 4-day "mini-break"/college reunion starts tomorrow, as luck would have it.

But I couldn't resist getting out for a bit under the stars with the 10x50s and 10x42s. Here are some quick suppressions (just saw Robin Williams the Millennium Man):

Well, I used to think that a 4mm exit pupil was ideal for my skies, and maybe it still is, but perhaps 42mm isn't.

The 10x42 SE certainly does create a dark background under my light polluted skies, which was noticeable during my 10x50 Fuji vs. 10x42 SE comparison. HOWEVER, after going back and forth many times btwn the two bins, looking at the same star fields in the Milky Way (which was barely visible naked eye tonight, had my eyes been dark adapted, I'm sure it would have stood out more prominently), I could see moore stars with the 10x50s despite the contrast not being as good. Of course I can attribute this to the larger aperture rather than the larger exit pupil, but my point is that despite the decreased contast, I could see moore stars.

In fact, switching back to the 10x42s, I found the views looked too dim -- as if I were looking at the night sky with sunglasses. I wish I had the 12x50 SE to compare to both of them, because from memory, the 12x50s show both moore stars AND better contrast, though they lacked the wide FOV of the Fujis. And they are much lighter than the Fujis (I did the 10x comparison handheld).

The Fuji's FOV though only 1/2* greater, seemed like moore than less. When I measured the 10x42 SE's FOV against the 10x42 LX last year, I found the LX had slightly moore FOV, but it was impossible to say whether the specs for the LX were underrated or the SE's overrated. Although I would have to do a more careful comparison (I changed the repeat speed on my keyboard), the difference at least seems greater than 1/2* even with the eyecups down on the SE.

But as I mentioned in the 15x70 thread, the edges of the 10x42s were sharper, though the difference wasn't as great as I first thought. Jupiter is difficult to focus on handheld with the Fujis IF EPs. I used Vega to achieve fine focus and found that Jupiter stayed sharper to the edge than before, but still not as sharp to the edge as the SE. Of course, the Fujis FOV is so wide that unless I actually move a bright star off axis, I don't notice the difference. I could see a faint diffused ring of light in the Fujis near the edges like I do with my Audubons and Octarems, but not as bright. Stray light?

I would like to try the Fujis under DARK skies, with dark adpated eyes, I'm sure the views would be stunning.

As far as the weight difference, the SEs feel like featherweights by comparison, but the heavier weight of the Fujis does help steady the images better, though I need to take frequently rests.

The 10x42 SE is, of course, better for birding than the Fuji, with it's lighter weight and center focusing, and when seated, I can hold the SEs fairly steady. Only when I do a careful test (reading words on a transformer about 200 ft. ? away, Steve, I need a reality check on that figure), are the bad vibrations revealed. In this case, the Eights (8x32 SE) are better, right Steve? :-)

Using the 65* AFOV Fujis and seeing the subtle vibrations in the SEs handheld has renewed my interest in the Canon 10x42 IS L. If I can handle the Fujis at 52 oz., the 36 oz. Canons should be doable for stargazing (provided the ergonomics suit my hands and the weight is well distributed).

For birding, however, I still have my doubts about carrying that much weight around my neck in the field. I remember how my neck felt after using the 10x42 LXs all day. I could geek out and buy a binoharness. It's easier to carry a 36 oz. bin than a monopod and head + bins. Still, for birding, I like good DOF, and 10x bins do not have as good DOF as my 8x bins.

Brock

--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker