Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2110
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
"Okay, why are Fujinon FMTR-SX so exceedingly heavy?"
Because when MOST of the binos discussed on this list have faded from the memory of the oldest member, the FMTR-SX (ratty rubber and all) will still be working, worth repairing, and if used intelligently STILL never have been out of collimation.
Cheers,
Bill
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
"Okay, why are Fujinon FMTR-SX so exceedingly heavy?"
Because when MOST of the binos discussed on this list have faded from the memory of the oldest member, the FMTR-SX (ratty rubber and all) will still be working, worth repairing, and if used intelligently STILL never have been out of collimation.
Cheers,
Bill
Why?
Are you saying it's not possible to make light-weight, durable binoculars? Are you saying that more durability requires more weight? Why would that be the case? Honestly, I don't understand this.
--------------------
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
As of 23 August 2008 - Celestron Skymaster 12x60
|
DeepSpace67
sage
Reged: 05/13/06
Posts: 448
Loc: Kansas City, KS, USA
|
|
Quote:
I think Miyauchi might be caught in a "death-roll" now. None of the optics dealers in Tokyo give their products shelf space any longer. Their web site has disappeared too. I will surprised if they are still in business after Xmas.
Rick
Wondered the same with no company website. Seems like many sites online have the Exceeds, but other types including the Saturn's are in shorter supply.
--------------------
Matthew
10" Antares Dobsonian, 8x50 RACI, Telrad, Green Laser
Apogee RA-88-SA, Custom Mount, Green Laser
Garrett Gemini Lightweight 11x56 Binoculars
|
dgs©
Postmaster
Reged: 03/29/04
Posts: 13903
Loc: West Monroe, Louisiana
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Okay, why are Fujinon FMTR-SX so exceedingly heavy?"
Because when MOST of the binos discussed on this list have faded from the memory of the oldest member, the FMTR-SX (ratty rubber and all) will still be working, worth repairing, and if used intelligently STILL never have been out of collimation.
Cheers,
Bill
Why?
Are you saying it's not possible to make light-weight, durable binoculars? Are you saying that more durability requires more weight? Why would that be the case? Honestly, I don't understand this.
My guess would start with stiffness of parts. Stiffness depends on modulus of elasticity (material property), moment of inertia (geometric property), and dimensions of part. Making things lighter means using lighter materials (likely lower modulus of elasticity) and/or using thinner parts which means lower moment of inertia. Reducing either or both reduces stiffness.
I suppose modern composite materials such as carbon fiber might be a workable solution, but I don't know anything about the modulus of elasticity as compared to cast aluminum or other metal. I know carbon fiber is high in the strength to weight ratio area, but that doesn't say anything about it's relative stiffnesss. For what it's worth, I think it's pretty dang stiff, and might be a good choice, but would be pretty pricey.
--------------------
- david
8"Ø Newtonian on SVP, Moonlite CR2, Telrad
PST Oberwerk Ultra 15x70 Orion Ultraview 10×50
Hand-me-down Sears Refractor (Discoverer) 60mm×900mm
"What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world, remains and is immortal." --Albert Pike
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2110
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
Ed C. Wrote: "Why would that be the case? Honestly, I don't understand this."
The short reason for that is that you have not made your living by fixing binoculars day after day for nearly 40 years.
The long answer is that people are just plain cheap. They wil drive around in BMW's, Grand Cherokees, F-3500s that get the same gas mileage as the space shuttle and SWEAR they can't afford a decent binocular.
Binoculars are dropped.
Thicker metal is stronger metal.
We could use BETTER metals that are thinner, but tooling and machining costs would go through the roof and people are already complaining about cost.
Sure we COULD do it all. But, who would buy the product? These companies are in business to turn a profit, not keep a bunch us opto-geeks happy.
We could also have MUCH better optics. BUT, will people pay for exotic glass with PRECISION aspheric curves?
NOPE!
Have a good night.
Cheers,
Bill
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
Ed,
The Fujinon FMT-SX is just a lot of bino. Mil spec requires all-metal construction with barrels that won't dent if dropped, hinges that a gorilla can't bend, O-rings at all possible entry points, and extra mechanisms in the lens cells for the stable and optically superior eccentric-ring collimation adjustments. This degree of ruggedness is not overkill if a klutz like me is stumbling through rocky terrain with the bino dangling from his neck, which I do. Add big prisms that give a bright view not just in the center but all over the field, and big eyepieces that have enough, and large enough, lenses to provide a decently wide and curiously sharp and bright afov, and good eye relief. (I should not mention the coatings, as they add no weight, but they are an enticement.) I lug one of these 7x or 10x50s around by day, sometimes wondering why, but when I pop it up to my face, it's all worthwhile. The only comparable porro, the Nikon Prostar, is only 3 oz. lighter, and has smaller eyepieces. (Too close--something going on there.) Top gun 50mm roofs are 10 oz. lighter but 3x as costly, no thanks. Less is readily available, for less. Many lightweight binos have NONE of the above attributes. I wish the Fujis were lighter, but I love 'em. I do find them a bit hateful to carry, but very nice to handhold when viewing.
Ron
|
billbob
member
Reged: 08/07/07
Posts: 74
Loc: Kimberling City, MO
|
|
I see your point, BillC. But it seems there is a place for all the different buyers. The "no clue" buyers help to keep all the distributors we now have in business. Then there are those like me with limited funding that try to get the best we can within our reach. There will always be those that keep searching for that newest, best bino available.
I'm just a beginner, so I have no knowledge of this particular topic. But business wise, it seems anything that can spike the publics interest must be a good thing. I would think that a low cost entry level product would be high on the list of ways to accomplish this. Hopefully, some entry level buyers will become intrigued and upgrade at some point. Thus the cycle continues.
Bill
--------------------
Orion XT8 w/intelliscope
GO 10x50 HD-WP ss
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1812
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I think Miyauchi might be caught in a "death-roll" now. None of the optics dealers in Tokyo give their products shelf space any longer. Their web site has disappeared too.
That is disappointing to hear - on reading this I quickly tried the web addresses that were working a couple of months ago and sure enough they seem dead. I had a friend in Japan talk to Miyauchi in mid July and my understanding is that the elder Miyauchi has been ill and in the hospital quite a bit, although he did answer the phone when my friend called. There was no indication at that time in the conversation that they were anything other than open for business as usual, but perhaps something has happened in the interim? I've sent an email off to my friend to see if she can find out what is going on there...
--------------------
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2110
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
"I'm just a beginner, so I have no knowledge of this particular topic."
That is not a crime. BUT, did you take my words in context? Do you drive a Beemer or a gas gussling pick-up? I grew up VERY, VERY poor. I know how it is not to have the best of anything. But, for those I was addressing, Ignorance and bull-headedness are probably the only excuses.
If I had the money, I'd have a Swarovski 8x32 EL. But, I don't have the model so I have to settle for the lowly Nikon Superior E for my bird watching. You feel sorry for me, don't you?
It's 95% of the performance and was HUNDREDS of dollars cheaper.
Cheers,
Bill
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
Ed,
The Fujinon FMT-SX is just a lot of bino. Mil spec requires all-metal construction with barrels that won't dent if dropped, hinges that a gorilla can't bend, O-rings at all possible entry points, and extra mechanisms in the lens cells for the stable and optically superior eccentric-ring collimation adjustments. This degree of ruggedness is not overkill if a klutz like me is stumbling through rocky terrain with the bino dangling from his neck, which I do. Add big prisms that give a bright view not just in the center but all over the field, and big eyepieces that have enough, and large enough, lenses to provide a decently wide and curiously sharp and bright afov, and good eye relief. (I should not mention the coatings, as they add no weight, but they are an enticement.) I lug one of these 7x or 10x50s around by day, sometimes wondering why, but when I pop it up to my face, it's all worthwhile. The only comparable porro, the Nikon Prostar, is only 3 oz. lighter, and has smaller eyepieces. (Too close--something going on there.) Top gun 50mm roofs are 10 oz. lighter but 3x as costly, no thanks. Less is readily available, for less. Many lightweight binos have NONE of the above attributes. I wish the Fujis were lighter, but I love 'em. I do find them a bit hateful to carry, but very nice to handhold when viewing.
Ron
Ron, Thank you very much for answering my question about why these things are so heavy. To me, in learning more about them, it seems to me that they aren't really designed primarily for astronomy but of course can be used for it. My usage certainly does not require mil-spec. Eagle Optics advertises the 7x50 as being for marine use. As heavy as my 12x60 is (44 oz), I cannot imaging handholding a 7x50 that weighs almost another half pound more than that!
Sidebar: My car (a four-cylinder, four-door 1983 Plymouth Reliant) probably isn't worth much more than my Orion Ultraview was new.... (During one recent tank of gas, I got 28 miles per gallon - mostly highway driving, of course.) I don't need a mil-spec car, either.
--------------------
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
As of 23 August 2008 - Celestron Skymaster 12x60
|
billbob
member
Reged: 08/07/07
Posts: 74
Loc: Kimberling City, MO
|
|
Sorry, Bill, I did take your words out of context. No, I don't have a Beemer or gas guzzling pick-up, I drive an 8 year old car and getting 28-30mpg.
Quote:
If I had the money, I'd have a Swarovski 8x32 EL. But, I don't have the model so I have to settle for the lowly Nikon Superior E for my bird watching. You feel sorry for me, don't you?
It's 95% of the performance and was HUNDREDS of dollars cheaper.
LOL - no, I don't feel sorry for you. But I have to ask. Would you really spend hundreds of dollars to pick up that extra 5% performance? I ask this seriously, as this is the question I ponder quite often when making most any purchase. Where do I draw the line? The old adage "it only cost a few cents more to go first class" certainly doesn't apply here. I ordered my GO 10x50 ss last evening (Friday night, after closing, on a holiday weekend - good timing, huh?) and am very comfortable with this decision. I still wonder at times, what could I have gotten for a few bucks more?
--------------------
Orion XT8 w/intelliscope
GO 10x50 HD-WP ss
|
BillC
on a new path
Reged: 06/04/04
Posts: 2110
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
"Sorry, Bill, I did take your words out of context."
Not to worry; that seems to happen quite often around here.
"Would you really spend hundreds of dollars to pick up that extra 5% performance? I ask this seriously, as this is the question I ponder quite often when making most any purchase."
I really don't know. One thing for certain, the decision would not be based on numbers, logic or I.Q.
Over the years (back when I had money) I have owned 32 vintage Rickenbacker guitars. Yet, I never EARNED enough money with ALL of them to pay for ANY ONE of them.
Was it sensible to have made such expenditures!? The answer lies in a realm that has no relationship to logic to mathematics.
BUT, I sure enjoyed them!!!!!
So, you're back where you started. But, I answered honestly.
Cheers,
Bill
--------------------
William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Founding Editor, Amateur Telescope Making Journal
20-year vet. of Captain's Nautical Supplies, Optics Dept. Mgr.
Optics Machanic, WG11-3306, Ft. Lewis, Tacoma,WA
Yata, Yata, Yata . . .
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2054
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
I'm not sure if anybody has pointed this out yet, but they are heavy due to earth's gravity. They'd be weightless in orbit, though they'd still be massive. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Quote:
As heavy as my 12x60 is (44 oz), I cannot imaging handholding a 7x50 that weighs almost another half pound more than that!
I don't know what 44 oz + 1/2 pound is, but my 7x50s are 1.6 kg...
I couldn't imagine buying them for handheld use... until I did.
I couldn't imagine getting used to such a heavy instrument in my hands; was sure this'd be the one instrument I'd sell quickly... until over the course of weeks turning to months, I simply got used to it.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
edcannon
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/19/03
Posts: 679
Loc: Austin, Texas
|
|
Quote:
I don't know what 44 oz + 1/2 pound is, but my 7x50s are 1.6 kg...
I couldn't imagine buying them for handheld use... until I did.
I couldn't imagine getting used to such a heavy instrument in my hands; was sure this'd be the one instrument I'd sell quickly... until over the course of weeks turning to months, I simply got used to it.
Glad you're happy!
1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
1.6 kg = 3.5 pounds = 56.3 ounces
So FWIW your 7x50 weighs 12 ounces (.34 kg) more than my 12x60, and I find that the weight of my 12x60 discourages me to some extent from using it, even with its fairly generous 5.7-degree true field of view and the faint stars and DSOs that I can see with it.
So this is another example of variation in individual binocular preferences.
--------------------
Ed Cannon - Austin, Texas, USA
As of 23 August 2008 - Celestron Skymaster 12x60
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Thanks Ed. Speaking about preferences, I would of course prefer the 7x50s to be lighter.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
Joe Ogiba
Post Laureate
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 3361
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
The Pentax 10x50 PIF from the 90's weighed 58oz but comfortable to hold and had winged folding eyecups with a nice 65° AFOV/6.5° FOV.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion EON 72
120ST
Apex 127
C6 XLT
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer w/13mm Ethos, 20mm Pentax XW's, 20mm Widescan III's.
|
|
5 registered and 9 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1288
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
