Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars

Subject: Fujinon Techno-Stabi

Comments on the new Techno-Stabi 14x stabilized binoculars from Fujinon:

We have them in stock at both Captain's stores for anyone to look at. They ship in a hardcase, Pelican. They are rated waterproof. Power is 4 AA cells in a sealed compartment. Has a standby mode, and run mode. Not nearly the windup time of the Stabiscope, but some small amount of whine. When turned on, does not require the button to be held down like the Canon IS bino's. They are slightly bigger and heavier that the Canon 15x45. Most notable feature and one that was a real suprise to me is that this is the ONLY binocular I have ever picked up that I can use without my glasses. My correction is more than -12 in one eye, about -9 in the other. No other binoculars I have ever tried had enough travel in the focus to accomodate, but the new Fuji does. Haven't really wrung out the optics yet, will at first chance and report.

==============================
Subject: Ye Olde Broad Arrow

From: Peter Abrahams, telscope@___.com

I was asked by a telescope acquaintance about the broad arrow mark on British optics. My only reference on this subject is William Reid, Binoculars in the Army, Army Museum, #81, 82, 83, 84, 1982-5; part II, pp25 & 30. The broad arrow mark was inscribed on all optics (among other equipment) bought by the Office of the Ordnance and was first used in the fifteenth century. It is a 'property of' indicator and a quality control mark, and instruments had to pass certain tests to be accepted. Two such three-pronged arrows point to point, indicate an instrument bought & then sold by the Office. If a glass failed the quality tests, it was marked with an arrow with the leftmost line collapsed onto the middle line, a two pronged arrow. Yellow might indicate naval use. 'NPL' indicates the testing was done at the National Physical Laboratory.

Is this mark still being used, or when did its use cease?

==============================================
===============================================

Binocular List #67: 23 July 1999. Super B, yellowing, roof glasses, European repair, Swift 20x80, Takahashi 22x60

========================================
Subject: Super binocular; Yellow Glass

From: Fan Tao

Regarding the planned "Super Binocular", replicating the SARD 6x42 or B&L 7x50 widefield is an interesting idea, but I have to put my two cents in and say that I would be far more interested in a design incorporating a modern eyepiece design and modern glass formulations. If you are going to produce a binocular worthy of being considered a benchmark such as the SARD 6x42 was, you have to come up with an innovative new design such as Al Nagler did with his famous eyepiece. I'm not saying that you should stick a pair of Naglers on the binoculars, but I have to believe that one can improve on the nearly 100 year old Erfle design, by using a negative field lens configuration for example, to improve the edge of field performance. Such a design would have to have big, expensive eyepieces, but I don't see why they have to be much bigger than what's already on the SARD, and I'm willing to pay the extra $1000 or so for Nagler-like performance.

I would prefer the 7x magnification over the 6x for the Super Binocular. I would also be happy with 8x.

==========================================

From: "R.F.Bolton"

Peter, would you or any of the list members know anything about dismantling and/or collimating roof prism binoculars. I am starting to see the 8x2? and 10x2? sizes now. They are selling for $60-90A. I am wondering if there is a relatively quick, easy/cheap means of adjusting them. OR are they more of a throw away item for the cheap units?

Rod Bolton. mailto:brisphotoreps@___.net.au

===========

Rod, I don't think there is a generic assembly method. They certainly can get out of collimation, and probably aren't worth the cost of repair. --Peter

=======================================
Subject: Help Wanted.

From: "linda"

I have one problem which becomes three problems.

I have three very beautyful binos which need the hand of a very clever repairman:

One beh 7x50 tuna can cosmetically like new but they need a deep cleaning of prisms and oculars;

One beh 7x50 tuna can for Navy in splendid conditions but with the right tube dimmed while right tube is almost perfect;

One blc U-boot Glas recently overhauled by a famous rapairman.Probably mishandling during shipping has provoked a light discollimation which bother me very much.

I am looking for a very good repairman who can clean and collimate these three magnificent tools.

I must find this repairman in Europe because when we receive from USA we must pay customs taxes of the 25% of the declared value on shipping papers. Can any fellow suggest me the name of an European (possibly EEc) repairman? Thank You , Giancarlo Bozzano

=====

==========================

From: rab

>Some time ago, you mentioned that the Swift 20x80 was a cut above the

>normal generic 80 mm glass, I still haven't used one but I have noticed

>that there is one model, the Satellite, that they describe as wide field,

>183ft/1000yds; and I'm not sure that all that they sold are 'wf'. Peter

The Swift Satellite shown on eBay is an older model; if it is more than about 12 years old, it would have the earlier eyepiece design that has virtually non-existant eyerelief and I wouldn't accept it even if it were a gift. The ones made in the last 12 years or so, including current production, have changed mechanically over that time but still have comparatively long eyerelief and optimized optics (as opposed to cobbled optics, which characterize most cheap 80mm binoculars).

While it doesn't have in-focus parasitic images, like some cheap binoculars, it does have some horrendous stray-light images which severely detract from night-time city lights viewing. I suspect this has to do with its undersized BK7'ish prisms. The use of BK7 prisms doesn't automatically cause such problems, but in this case I think it's at fault.

Flexure of the bridge causes some 2 or more diopters of slop in focussing; this is flexure, not looseness of the shaft, so it's a design/manufacturing problem that ought to be fixed by SWIFT (if they care!). As an interim fix, one could tape the eyepieces in place at infinity, or make a foam compression washer.

Daytime use is impressive; the Satellite has enough eyerelief that I can add spectacle cutouts and comfortably see the field stops. There is no apparent 'bright ring' effect, suggesting good correction for pupil aberration. The apparent field is indeed huge (70-degrees) and very pleasant. The image quality falls off, but is acceptible.

Night time use is also pleasant, although the bridge flexure needs to be fixed; as an astronomy binocular, it's just fine. Bright stars will produce the stray light images, as will the moon. But the moon looked at directly is an awesome sight at 20X, and very sharp and comparatively color-free.

In some respects, it can be compared to the Fujinon 16x70 FMTSX. It has comparatively large objectives which, with their respective AR coatings probably have similar total transmission, and similar magnifications. Both have very short eyerelief, but both allow corrective spectaclets to be attached. The axial image in both is good, but while the Fuji is sharp to the edge, the Swift deteriorates off-axis. Both have an apparent field of about 65 to 70 degrees. Mechanically, the Fuji is above reproach. The Swift acts like it's made of rubber and demands immediate kludging to keep its eyepieces in simultaneous focus.

After handling some really excellent binoculars by Nikon and Fuji, I'm naturally dismayed by the 'cheapness' of the Swifts. But with a street price of under $350, about half that of the Fuji, and a third that of a Nikon, it's hard to hold a grudge against the Swift Satellite 20x80!

Incidently, the Satellite has a solid steel tripod adapter included in its price. You pay extra if you buy this attachment for the Fuji or Nikon. Regards, Dick Buchroeder

==============================
Subject: Takahashi 22x60

From an on-line astronomy group:

Tak 22x60 flourite prototype....Texas Nautical rep that had a pair ....The optics were fantastic, unlike the Zeiss 8x56 that I compared them to sharp to the edge. And the rectilinear (sp?) correction was the best that I have ever seen. But.... 22X? It does come standard with a neat adjustable mounting bracket, but even still...

It also looks really cheezy. It looks like someone took a cheapo pair of binoculars, cut off the EPs and the objective lenses, cut two 60mm refractors in half, then bolted it all together with some EPs. Since it was a prototype, this is probably exactly what they did . But to get $1k for a pair of binoculars they need to work on the fit and finish a little more.

====================================
====================================

Binocular List #68: 27 July 1999. roof prism collimation, Chinese glass, Hayward

=================================
Subject: roof prism collimation

From: Cory Suddarth

Regarding R.F. Bolton's question about roof binos, collimation is done by using the three-way push screws located under the skin below the eyepieces, the screws are typically brass. Then it's the usual swing method collimation technique. Takes about twenty minutes with frequent sips of java. Orion gets $45.00 which includes return shipping. It is a toss up at that price to repair or replace, I usually let the customer deside. Some folks just can't part with their camo-coated, floppy-hinged, tubes on a string. Cory Suddarth Senior Optical Tech Orion T&B Center

========================

From: Peter Serafin

I took my SARD 6X42 to a friend who works in environmental engineering and has access to a Geiger counter. No radiation detected.

About the DO binocular project. If they are going to do it I recommend they work on edge to edge sharpness and no kidney beans. A binocular with a sharp 10 - 12 degree field which I could sweep with my eyes and not my whole head. I have a scope made from an old large format camera lens which makes a wide flat field. Very nice when used with a modern wide angle eyepiece. Later, Pete

====================================

From: Atmj1@___m

A few weeks ago, we received one of the 4-inch Chinese bigeyes in for repair. The internal optics were coated with moisture; it was out of collimation; and one of the eyepieces was broken.

Upon contacting the importer, we found that, in order to promote his business, he was willing just exchange the instrument - as opposed to locating parts. Thus, the lady would have received a brand new instrument for next to nothing as opposed to paying two senior Opticalmen to execute the overhaul - a VERY substantial savings.

Eric authorized the trade and life was good.

Then, the woman went ballistic because they were not HER binoculars! She informed us that how no other were as good as hers. We tried to convince that she had a garden variety, current production, Chinese surplus binocular. However, logic and integrity would not sway her. The antique dealer she bought the bino from…….. Need I say more?

We again tried nicely to say that it wasn't so. She had to have HERS. We contacted Mr. Chin, the importer, who sent us a letter saying that there was nothing special about her bino. We have not routinely sold these things since the Vixens were made available. Still, I bought others so she could see 3 side by side and make her decision.

While the story gets MUCH more weird, this is what I need.

I would ask that you aficionados send me email messages to the effect that there is nothing special about these Chinese surplus instruments (barring vast optical knowledge from a small town antiques dealer) and that to your knowledge - citing your experience with binoculars (and these in general, if possible) - that they have been based on the same design for years.

I would appreciate this very much, and thank you in advance for doing so. I cannot make any headway with logic and reason. Perhaps, numbers will do the trick.

Kindest Regards, Bill Cook

=========================================

From: Peter Abrahams, telscope@___.com

The USN Mark 45 Mod 0 binocular was introduced during WWII, a 7 x 50 with a very slightly wider field and a more waterproof housing.

'Opticalman 3 & 2', 1966, reprinted by Dover as 'Basic Optics and Optical Instruments', notes on p449 that the hinge joint is different, with a straight tube - not tapered - and an expanding bearing that tightens against the hinge lugs, with hinge locks to secure the bearing. A Zerk grease fitting permits lubrication without disassembly. On p462 is noted that weak or faulty hinge tension is corrected with oversize bearings. Some surviving Mk 45s do indeed have a floppy hinge that will not hold IPD.

p8, hinge is illustrated and described.

p13, the hinge was designed so that lubrication did not effect the hinge tension, and the tension could be adjusted without forcing lubricant from the tapered assembly.

p16, The Mk 45 is 'the most waterproof of all the binoculars', designed for underwater service on submarines & demolition teams. It was designed (!) and produced by Hayward Lumber & Investment Co., Chemical & Mfg. Division, L.A. Body is drawn aluminum, not cast. Prism clusters suspended from the cover. Rubber gaskets used on seats of eye lens, objective lens, and between objective & body; eyepiece sealed with O-ring.

pp39-51, disassembly of Mk 45. 'Keep your bench clean'. Disassembly of this glass seems to require special tools, especially for the hinge. There are many gaskets, and presumably they would all need replacement after 50 years.