I recently bought a pair of these used and spent a couple of afternoons and nights with them before returning them. This was not long enough for a full review, but because of the interest and the scarcity of user reports, I thought I would post my impressions here. I've had a pair of Fujinon Polaris 7x50s for 3 years now, they have given me some of my most enjoyable views in this hobby. For all of their great qualities, they are also well-known for being too heavy and with only a moderately wide apparent field of view. The Miyauchis are lighter and have 66 degrees afov (9.5 degrees real fov), so it was with great interest that I read the reports of Holger Merlitz and Fan Tao on their performance. Both of these experienced observers noted issues with their Miyauchis, but were generally satisfied. Here is my experience.
The Miyauchis are indeed small and light compared to the Fujinon. Held above your head, you would guess they weigh half as much as the Fujinons, and they are very comfortable to hold. They also come with a beautiful brown leather case that is easily the finest I have seen for any binocular. The binoculars themselves look great, too, although a close inspection shows that the finish on the silver metal parts is perhaps not as even as it could be. The maroon leather is very nicely done.
The coatings seem a nice dark green, although they do not quite have the apparent quality of the Fujinons. More seriously, there was a slight haze on the inside of one of the 3 element objective lenses, and there were a couple of faint wipe marks on the inside of the other lens. These flaws are really unfortunate, and would be reasonable grounds for many customers to return for a refund. Additionally, when looking through the objective lenses towards the prisms and eyepieces, there were uneven areas on the prism coating. It looked as if circular areas on the center of the prisms were well-coated, but that outside this circular area the coatings had a mottled appearance. I have not seen anything like this before in a binocular. Perhaps it has no effect on the view if the areas I describe are out of the light path, but really it is another thing you don't like to see in an expensive binocular. Additionally, the prisms seemed much smaller than the Fujinon's, although this may be a consequence of the unusual porro-II arrangement of the Miyauchi.
These faults sound bad, but I was ready to overlook them if the Binons performed well. First views outside were promising - the view is indeed impressively wide. A neighbor and my dad both really liked them, as did I. Then, however, I sat down for a rigorous comparison with the Fujinons. On looking at a tree trunk in the middle distance, it was clear that the Fujinon showed more detail in the center of the field. Not much more detail, but there was a clear difference that I expect anyone who compared both would see. Here my experience is different from Holger Merlitz's, so perhaps this is a sign that I did not get as good a pair. Additionally, although the field is certainly smaller in the Fujinon, a much greater proportion of the field is sharp. The result is that when viewing a telephone pole in the near distance, a greater area of the telephone pole could be seen clearly without moving the Fujinon than could be seen in the Miyauchi.
(continued)
The Miyauchis are indeed small and light compared to the Fujinon. Held above your head, you would guess they weigh half as much as the Fujinons, and they are very comfortable to hold. They also come with a beautiful brown leather case that is easily the finest I have seen for any binocular. The binoculars themselves look great, too, although a close inspection shows that the finish on the silver metal parts is perhaps not as even as it could be. The maroon leather is very nicely done.
The coatings seem a nice dark green, although they do not quite have the apparent quality of the Fujinons. More seriously, there was a slight haze on the inside of one of the 3 element objective lenses, and there were a couple of faint wipe marks on the inside of the other lens. These flaws are really unfortunate, and would be reasonable grounds for many customers to return for a refund. Additionally, when looking through the objective lenses towards the prisms and eyepieces, there were uneven areas on the prism coating. It looked as if circular areas on the center of the prisms were well-coated, but that outside this circular area the coatings had a mottled appearance. I have not seen anything like this before in a binocular. Perhaps it has no effect on the view if the areas I describe are out of the light path, but really it is another thing you don't like to see in an expensive binocular. Additionally, the prisms seemed much smaller than the Fujinon's, although this may be a consequence of the unusual porro-II arrangement of the Miyauchi.
These faults sound bad, but I was ready to overlook them if the Binons performed well. First views outside were promising - the view is indeed impressively wide. A neighbor and my dad both really liked them, as did I. Then, however, I sat down for a rigorous comparison with the Fujinons. On looking at a tree trunk in the middle distance, it was clear that the Fujinon showed more detail in the center of the field. Not much more detail, but there was a clear difference that I expect anyone who compared both would see. Here my experience is different from Holger Merlitz's, so perhaps this is a sign that I did not get as good a pair. Additionally, although the field is certainly smaller in the Fujinon, a much greater proportion of the field is sharp. The result is that when viewing a telephone pole in the near distance, a greater area of the telephone pole could be seen clearly without moving the Fujinon than could be seen in the Miyauchi.
(continued)
