Celestron Ultima Binoculars vs. Fujinon
Michael Poser
have seen the Ultimas and they are amazingly crisp...
Thanks,
MP
Joe Morris
I have the Ultima 9x63s, and the are CRISP and clear right to the edge of
view. They are also bright with the 63 mm objectives. They are
surprisingly hand-holdable. A tripod is always better, of course. I have
not had a chance to compare with the Fujinons side-by-side. The reputation
of the Fujis are excellent.
Joe
Michael Poser wrote in message <37EED99F...@westnet.com>...
Rich N.
Rich
fros...@my-deja.com
10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
IMHO the Fujinon 70mm series are a cut above. I have no experience
with their other lines. I encourage you to get side-by-side with the
Fujinon products some dark night if at all possible. I would be
surprised if you didn't see a difference in favor of Fujinon.
In article <37EED99F...@westnet.com>,
Michael Poser <pr...@westnet.com> wrote:
> Are the Fujinon's really worth the money over the Ultima's 10X50's?
I
> have seen the Ultimas and they are amazingly crisp...
>
> Thanks,
> MP
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mourni...@my-deja.com
FMTR-SX 7x50's and Celestron 9x63 PRO's. The PRO's are very similar to
the Ultimas (identical optics, different trim??). It's hard to compare
different aperture, different power bino's, but... The Fujinons were
sharper and brighter than the PRO's. The Fuji's were also sharper near
the edge of the FOV and had better contrast. From an "eye strain"
perspective, the Fuji's offered a more comfortable view through their
huge eyepieces. From an "arm strain" perspective, the Fuji's were
actually heavier than the larger PRO's. Models other than the FMTR-SX
are probably lighter.
Rich N.
Hi Frosty,
The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-XL (Polaris) is more that twice
the weight of the of the Orion 10x50 Ultraview. The Fujinon
is three times the cost of the Ultraview.
The Fujinon has a smaller apparent field than the Ultraview.
There is a little difference in sharpness.
For something in the middle the Celestron 9x63 Ultima is
a good choice.
Rich
fros...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7soh4r$pk3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Current owner/user of Fujinon 16x70's. Former owner/user of Fujinon
>10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
>
>IMHO the Fujinon 70mm series are a cut above. I have no experience
>with their other lines. I encourage you to get side-by-side with the
>Fujinon products some dark night if at all possible. I would be
>surprised if you didn't see a difference in favor of Fujinon.
>
>
Rich N.
mourni...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sohrh$q4a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I couldn't do a comparison of same size bino's, but I had a pair of
>FMTR-SX 7x50's and Celestron 9x63 PRO's. The PRO's are very similar to
>the Ultimas (identical optics, different trim??).
The Celestron 9x63 Pro and Orion 9x63 MiniGiants are
virtually identical. The Celestron 9x63 Ultima is very different.
They are built differently. They have different optics. The Ultima
gives a sharper, higher contrast image.
>It's hard to compare
>different aperture, different power bino's, but... The Fujinons were
>sharper and brighter than the PRO's. The Fuji's were also sharper near
>the edge of the FOV and had better contrast. From an "eye strain"
>perspective, the Fuji's offered a more comfortable view through their
>huge eyepieces. From an "arm strain" perspective, the Fuji's were
>actually heavier than the larger PRO's. Models other than the FMTR-SX
>are probably lighter.
The Fujinons are pleasant to look through. They have excellent eye relief
and very good optics.
Rich
John Cheng
fros...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Current owner/user of Fujinon 16x70's. Former owner/user of Fujinon
> 10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
>
Aside from the obvious difference in magnification/exit pupil, how
would you rate the performance of the 10 vs 16 power Fujinons? For
example, were the 10's better on some deep sky objects or would you go
with the 16's across the board? Quite curious as I have the 10's.
Thanks.....
--
John Cheng
Pittsburgh PA
Joseph O'Neil
wrote:
>The Fujinons are pleasant to look through. They have excellent eye relief
>and very good optics.
To add to this commoent, people shoudl bear in mind that the
FMT series of Fujinon binoculars are probally the largest and toughest
line they make.
These binocualrs are made for and designed for military &
marine use. Us astro types just happened upon them after the fact.
Therefore, one of the biggest differences you are paying for in a pair
of Fujinon FMT's VS other premium brands is a pair of binocualrs that
is waterproof to 100 ft below, nitrogen purges (thus pretty much fog
proof), and tough as they come.
Give you this exampel - not that i want to try it, but if you
dropped a pair of Fujinons off the top of the roof your your house,
they woudl probally survive the fall, while I know most other brands
would not.
Finally, Fujinon makes a huge line of binocs, so you have to
find out which model Fujinon we are comparing.
Just off the top of my head, here they are:
FMT (Polaris) - top of the line, hookin' huge eyepeices.
MT (Posiden) - Identical body & optics the FMT, save for smaller
eyepeices
NAUTILIS - smaller body, but still mil spec
BIRDER - small, has both close & centre focus
HUNTER - small roof prism, mil spc
CD SERIES - Roof prism, largest model is 42mm, probally the best
Fujinon makes. Full mil spec, tougher than the FMT series, comes
darned close to Zeiss or Leica roof prism binocs in perfomance
(speaking as an owner of Leica binocs).
MARINER - 7x50 inly, waterproof, assembled in china, lenses cut in
Japan. Surprizingly sharp on the stars however.
I think there might be some more too, but that is it off th
etop pf my head. For astronomy, I think the FMT are best, the CD
series are surprizingly good (held back only by the fact that they go
up to 42mm only), and on a budget the Mariners are really good.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil/store.html
London, Ont, Canada
mark d. doiron
Joseph O'Neil <jon...@multiboard.com> wrote in message
news:37f0b0b9...@news.multiboard.com...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:30:06 -0700, "Rich N." <rnapo*remove*@znet.com>
> wrote:
>
> FMT (Polaris) - top of the line, hookin' huge eyepeices.
> MT (Posiden) - Identical body & optics the FMT, save for smaller
> eyepeices
i believe that the fmt's have the field flatener lenses (you can see them
several inches behind the objectives) and that the mt's do not. this also
causes a difference in weight.
clear skies!
mark d.
Raymond Hill
object, but if it is, the Ultraviews are good enough.
Rich N. wrote in message ...
>
>
>Hi Frosty,
>
>The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-XL (Polaris) is more that twice
>the weight of the of the Orion 10x50 Ultraview. The Fujinon
>is three times the cost of the Ultraview.
>
>The Fujinon has a smaller apparent field than the Ultraview.
>There is a little difference in sharpness.
>
>For something in the middle the Celestron 9x63 Ultima is
>a good choice.
>
>Rich
>
>
>
>
>fros...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7soh4r$pk3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Current owner/user of Fujinon 16x70's. Former owner/user of Fujinon
>>10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
>>
>>IMHO the Fujinon 70mm series are a cut above. I have no experience
>>with their other lines. I encourage you to get side-by-side with the
>>Fujinon products some dark night if at all possible. I would be
>>surprised if you didn't see a difference in favor of Fujinon.
>>
>>
>>In article <37EED99F...@westnet.com>,
>> Michael Poser <pr...@westnet.com> wrote:
>>> Are the Fujinon's really worth the money over the Ultima's 10X50's?
>>I
>>> have seen the Ultimas and they are amazingly crisp...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> MP
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Raymond Hill
alignment of the optics. The Fujinon's are built better than a tank. If
you dropped a pair of Orions or Celestrons, they most likely would be
destroyed.
Joseph O'Neil wrote in message <37f0b0b9...@news.multiboard.com>...
>>and very good optics.
>
> To add to this commoent, people shoudl bear in mind that the
>FMT series of Fujinon binoculars are probally the largest and toughest
>line they make.
> These binocualrs are made for and designed for military &
>marine use. Us astro types just happened upon them after the fact.
>Therefore, one of the biggest differences you are paying for in a pair
>of Fujinon FMT's VS other premium brands is a pair of binocualrs that
>is waterproof to 100 ft below, nitrogen purges (thus pretty much fog
>proof), and tough as they come.
> Give you this exampel - not that i want to try it, but if you
>dropped a pair of Fujinons off the top of the roof your your house,
>they woudl probally survive the fall, while I know most other brands
>would not.
> Finally, Fujinon makes a huge line of binocs, so you have to
>find out which model Fujinon we are comparing.
> Just off the top of my head, here they are:
>MT (Posiden) - Identical body & optics the FMT, save for smaller
>eyepeices
Rich N.
Hi Raymond,
I have the Fujinon 10x70 Polaris and the 8x42 Ultraview (I've looked
through 10x50 Ultraviews a number of times). Yes, the Fujinons are
have better image quality but difference isn't huge. Certainly not if you
look at the same part of the field in the Ultraview that is covered by
the Fujinon. The Fujinon has a little over 5 deg field, the Ultraview has
about a 6.5 deg field.
Rich
Raymond Hill wrote in message <7t1hfn$g0a$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
RWhitfi647
If you want something alittle better than the ultimas consider Vixen 9.5x44 ED.
They have a wider field and a little brighter. Their small size make them very
steady and versitile for any use. I've compared them side by side to the
ultimas and others. Vixen makes the Ultimas too. I also compared large
celestrons and Russians to Fugi 16x70's. The big Fugis are heavy and don't have
a center focus but can't be beat for quality, sharpness or brightness of
optics. I haven't looked at the 10x50 Fugi's, but I don't think anything can
tip the Vixen ED in that class of 10 power.
Roger
Rich N.
The Nikon Superior E 10x42 and 12x50 give very fine images.
They are relatively light weight.
Rich
fros...@my-deja.com
I used to have the 10's. First time I tried the 16's, that was it. I
traded in at once. "Across the board"? Yes. I'd say so.
All of these were mounted. Any of these hand held are troublesome
because of size and magnification. If you are hand-holding, stay with
the 10's.
In article <7sp4cm$7bj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
John Cheng <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7soh4r$pk3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fros...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Current owner/user of Fujinon 16x70's. Former owner/user of Fujinon
> > 10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
> >
> Hi:
> Aside from the obvious difference in magnification/exit pupil, how
> would you rate the performance of the 10 vs 16 power Fujinons? For
> example, were the 10's better on some deep sky objects or would you go
> with the 16's across the board? Quite curious as I have the 10's.
> Thanks.....
> --
> John Cheng
> Pittsburgh PA
>
fros...@my-deja.com
contrast and sharpness IMHO -- a superior viewing experience in every
meaningful way. I've never liked the middle if I had bucks enough to
go upscale. I enjoy the experience too much.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Ultimas 9x63's are wonderful units --
about the top of the hand-held range in my opinion. Many would say
their "cost/benefit" ratio is superior. My opinion does not consider
cost.
In article <ruvvno...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rich N." <rnapo*remove*@znet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Frosty,
>
> The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-XL (Polaris) is more that twice
> the weight of the of the Orion 10x50 Ultraview. The Fujinon
> is three times the cost of the Ultraview.
>
> The Fujinon has a smaller apparent field than the Ultraview.
> There is a little difference in sharpness.
>
> For something in the middle the Celestron 9x63 Ultima is
> a good choice.
>
> Rich
>
> fros...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7soh4r$pk3
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Current owner/user of Fujinon 16x70's. Former owner/user of Fujinon
> >10x70's. Former owner/user of Celestron 20x80's and many others.
> >
> >IMHO the Fujinon 70mm series are a cut above. I have no experience
> >with their other lines. I encourage you to get side-by-side with the
> >Fujinon products some dark night if at all possible. I would be
> >surprised if you didn't see a difference in favor of Fujinon.
> >
> >
> >In article <37EED99F...@westnet.com>,
> > Michael Poser <pr...@westnet.com> wrote:
> >> Are the Fujinon's really worth the money over the Ultima's
10X50's?
> >I
> >> have seen the Ultimas and they are amazingly crisp...
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> MP
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Rich N.
The view is better through the 10x70 Polaris (Fujinon).
But the Ultimas perform so well and are so light
I seldom use the Fujinons anymore.
The Nikon Superior Es have very nice optics.
Leica and Zeiss binoculars also give fine images
but I think the porro prism binoculars are a little brighter
for the same size and magnification. I prefer the "hands together"
position of the roof prism binoculars. They are easier to hand
hold.
The Zeiss 7x42 and 7x45 give outstanding wide field
views with excellent eye relief.
Rich
fros...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7t5iq2$2e4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...