Historical Review of Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars [Archive]

elkcub

Monday 3rd October 2005, 21:49

NOTE:
An article by Edward M. Huff and Renze de Vries entitled: "The Inimitable Swift Model 804 Audubon Binoculars: Design and Marking Variations" is attached to Post #15 in three .pdf sections.

Historical Note #1: SP Series, — Post 59
Factoid #1: Tethered Objective Covers — Post 61
Factoid #2: Non-Air-Spaced 804ED — Post 91
Update — Post 103

As a continuation of thread Differences in Swift Audubon mark I, II, III ?, Renze de Vries and I have been investigating the various types of Swift Model #804 binoculars, and their marking variations. This has been aided by somewhat incomplete advertising records provided by Swift, San Jose, some of our own catalogues, as well as information from various collectors.

At this point it appears that Mark II binoculars were Swift's "Premium Quality" series, dating back to the early 1960s. One of the defining aspects to all Mark II models was a 5-element ocular, and three other quality construction characteristics. It does not seem that there were any Mark I Audubons, although there was definitely a Mark I lineup that overlapped in time but met different engineering criteria. We have identified several major design changes during the #804's 40 yr. history, which spanned the period from 1960 to 1999. We plan to publish a full BF report of the various types and marking when it's complete.

It anyone has a published account of the interaction between Swift and so-called "world famous" ornithologists back in the late 1950s or early 1960s, from which the original design evolved, it would be appreciated if you would share it with us. Even if written accounts differ it would be an interesting preface.

Second, although Swift's records are incomplete, we know from eBay sales that 2 or 3 types with blue or gold ribbons on the left cover plate were made. At the moment we are assuming they were produced in the period 1983-84, because they seem to represent a short-lived transition model with most of the characteristics of the earlier body style, and some of the features later to be consolidated into the significantly smaller 804R. ("R" means "revised," incidentally.) The stumper is that some ribbon-marked model have eyecups similar to very early types made before 1983, and the diopter scales are also different on some.

So, if anyone can provide information from old Swift catalogs with pictures and dates it would help us enormously to sort out what actually happened. If you own one of these blue or gold ribbon Audubons that could also be a help in learning more about them.

Please feel free to respond on this thread, or email me or Renze if you would like to contribute. Of course, anything else that might help to make this historical review as complete, accurate, and interesting as possible would also be appreciated.

Many thanks,

Ed Huff (aka Elkcub)
Renze de Vries

jules.b

Wednesday 5th October 2005, 08:37

elkcub

Wednesday 5th October 2005, 19:20

I have a set of the Audubon 804 mkII with the blue ribbon on prism cover. The eyepieces look like those on the first body design, but the focus knob is like those on the later models - between the body hinges rather than the hinge and bridge.

There are no flaps that I can see on the vinyl for collimation screws. Looking under the objective lens surrounds there appear to be multiple rings. Would these be "eccentric rings".

I do not know how old they are, but judging from the case wear they are quite an old model.

Jules,

Thanks for the response. Using Bill Cook's CN picture showing three 804 types (link below), is the eyecup made of rubber like the leftmost type, or is it hard material? One of the things we've uncovered is that (what we believe to be) the very first models actually used a between-the-hinge focusing wheel — but it was silver ribbed metal not rubber.

It would really help if you could attach a few digital pictures of this beauty so we could get a good look at the cover plates, eyepieces, etc. Not to be nosey, but did you buy this specimen on eBay in the last few months? If so, we may have pictures of it.

With regard to alignment adjustment, perhaps we can entice Bill Cook into commenting. My older Audubons (c. 1967) also doesn't have flaps, and I was wondering about the same thing. A picture of it is attached, beside a more recent 804R that preceded the center type in Bill's picture.

Ed
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=binoculars&Number=387187&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Swift%208.5x44&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=387187&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=3785&daterange=1&newerval=5&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post387187

jules.b

Thursday 6th October 2005, 16:01

Here are a few photos. The eyecups, as you can see, are like those on the left in the Cloudynights forum photo.

They are not an Ebay purchase.

WJC

Thursday 6th October 2005, 17:13

Jules,

Thanks for the response. Using Bill Cook's CN picture showing three 804 types (link below), is the eyecup made of rubber like the leftmost type, or is it hard material? One of the things we've uncovered is that (what we believe to be) the very first models actually used a between-the-hinge focusing wheel — but it was silver ribbed metal not rubber.

It would really help if you could attach a few digital pictures of this beauty so we could get a good look at the cover plates, eyepieces, etc. Not to be nosey, but did you buy this specimen on eBay in the last few months? If so, we may have pictures of it.

With regard to alignment adjustment, perhaps we can entice Bill Cook into commenting. My older Audubons (c. 1967) also doesn't have flaps, and I was wondering about the same thing. A picture of it is attached, beside a more recent 804R that preceded the center type in Bill's picture.

Ed
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=binoculars&Number=387187&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Swift%208.5x44&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=387187&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=3785&daterange=1&newerval=5&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post387187

Gentlemen:

Today, I am as busy as a one-armed paper hanger. But, I will get back to you as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Bill

elkcub

Friday 7th October 2005, 05:47

Here are a few photos. The eyecups, as you can see, are like those on the left in the Cloudynights forum photo.

They are not an Ebay purchase.

Great! I'd like to wait for Bill's comments about these designs.

More later,

Ed

WJC

Friday 7th October 2005, 21:29

Great! I'd like to wait for Bill's comments about these designs.

More later,

Ed

Hi guys:

I doubt my comments will be of any worth. Since Jules has the bino in his possession, he knows that it has rubber eyecups. Also, be advised that this bino is the little brother to the Swift Commodore—a 7x50 with a VERY wide apparent field of view. This was aided in part by the lenses that were glued to the prism plates just after the last prism surface.

If I can figure out how to post an image on this site, I will show you a hybrid—am 8x40 Bushnell Sportscaster. Note the Jason / Bushnell / early Swift type of focus mechanism.

As for collimation, the one you speak of does have eccentric ring collimation, as did almost all decent binos of that era. The through-the-body screws on the Audubon are a bit out of the ordinary in that they tilt through the body and strike the prism at an angle. I have the Audubon 8.5x44 and 10x50 Audubon (now called the Kestrel) and used them as my primary birding instruments right up to the time I bought my 8x32 SE. However, collimation can be bear. There is not always enough resistance in the springs to hold the prism in place. This causes one to have to tweak more than should be necessary. This, in turn, wears out the threads or causes one side of the thread slot to bread off. That is a real pain. Finding small instrument screws, even in a market the size of Seattle, can be an exercise in futility.

Yes, it CAN take longer to collimate a bino with the eccentric ring method. However, once the job is done, it’s done; there’s no worrying about wimpy springs.

Was this of any value?

Cheers,

Bill Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret.
Manager, Precision Instruments & Optics, Captain’s Nautical Supplies, Seattle

P.S. Please compare the NEW Swift Audubon to the photo of the Second Prize in the Night Sky Summer Sweepstakes (page 51). Just thought you would be interested.

elkcub

Saturday 8th October 2005, 01:46

Bill,

You bet it's of value. I'd like to ask more specific questions, some based on what you said, and some on what's in old Swift ads. However, my cousin is visiting for the next few days so I'll get back to this thread shortly.

Could you clarify where the eccentric adjustments are made, as per Jules' question in post #2?

Thanks,
-ed

elkcub

Saturday 8th October 2005, 21:25

... P.S. Please compare the NEW Swift Audubon to the photo of the Second Prize in the Night Sky Summer Sweepstakes (page 51). Just thought you would be interested.

Bill,

I don't follow what the photo is or have a web site for the "Summer Sweepstakes (page 51)." :h?:

WJC

Sunday 9th October 2005, 16:44

Bill,

I don't follow what the photo is or have a web site for the "Summer Sweepstakes (page 51). :h?:

If you did, you would see it has a Vixen label.

Bill

elkcub

Monday 10th October 2005, 18:00

If you did, you would see it has a Vixen label.

Bill

Bill,

Would you like to embellish this? Are you saying/suggesting/implying it's the same design or uses the same technology? My brain cells aren't working too well...

elkcub

Monday 17th October 2005, 16:12

Here are a few photos. The eyecups, as you can see, are like those on the left in the Cloudynights forum photo.

They are not an Ebay purchase.

Jules,

These pictures help. Can we use them in our paper?

I'm also curious about how collimation is done on these and others like them. Inputs from anyone would help.

I thought these ribbon marked binoculars were a transitional type that foreshadowed a return of focusing wheel to between the main hinges. However, based on several variations in eyecups, some of which are rubber and some not, there is a good chance this model was sold concurrently in Europe with the model shown on the left in Bill's photo.

If anyone has information that can clear up this mystery it would be appreciated. Catalogs are best, but they are hard to find.

Many thanks,
Ed

elkcub

Tuesday 15th November 2005, 07:47

Well, it's been a lot of fun for the last two months, but our paper is now ready for initial distribution. Sorry its taken this long, but I think you'll see why. The 23 pg. document has been compressed from 6.5MB to 1.2MB and has naturally lost some detail in the process. Unfortunately, some folks with an older Acrobat Reader may not be able to open it. Please try to upgrade.

Renze de Vries and I would like to thank the following people specifically for helping in various ways, but we take responsibility for all errors large or small. Henry Link was particularly generous with his time and insight, and has helped a great deal.

1. Steve Carter, Swift Optics, Customer Support, San Jose, CA, USA
2. Greg Short, Swift Optics, Customer Support, San Jose, CA, USA
3. Fan Tao, USA
4. Julian Bosley, Oxford, UK
5. Henry Link, Greensboro, NC
6. Wim de Boer, Technolyt, The Netherlands
7. Bill Cook, Captain’s Nautical Supplies, Seattle, OR, USA

Naturally, any questions, comments or corrections would be appreciated, as the paper can can be revised if necessary.

Hope you enjoy reading it as much as we've enjoyed the challenge of putting it together.

Ed Huff (Elkcub)
PS. The corrected (and final) version can be found on post #15.
Total earlier downloads: Part 1, 56; Part 2, 43; Part 3, 49.

John Traynor

Thursday 17th November 2005, 01:50

FYI

To download files in a MS Windows environment:

Highlight the file name
Right click
Save Target as
Select your Desktop (or other location)
Save

Repeat for each file.
The file(s) will be on your computer for easy access.

Adobe Acrobat reader 7.0 works fine. Get it at:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2_allversions.html

John

elkcub

Friday 25th November 2005, 19:22

The corrected version of the paper has been uploaded, and the earlier versions are being deleted to avoid confusion. You would have to look closely to see any difference, but two marking variations have been added, and some of the tentative wording has been strengthened based on feedback from Swift and a few collectors. We've also added a few fieldmark arrows to help identification. It's been an interesting journey.

Again, we would like to thank this somewhat larger list of people for helping in various ways, and hope no one was left out. We still take responsibility for all errors large and small, so let us know if you find any.

1. Steve Carter, Swift Optics, Customer Support, San Jose, CA, USA
2. Greg Short, Swift Optics, Customer Support, San Jose, CA, USA
3. Fan Tao, USA
4. Julian Bosley, Oxford, UK
5. Henry Link, Greensboro, NC
6. Wim de Boer, Technolyt, The Netherlands
7. Bill Cook, Captain’s Nautical Supplies, Seattle, OR, USA
8. Ted Nordhagen, Montana, USA

Happy Holidays,
Ed Huff and Renze de Vries

elkcub

Wednesday 30th November 2005, 21:03

:hi: Several people have asked about the availability of Type 4 804s. Although used ones turn up on eBay fairly consistently, I recently learned about three new old stock items in Tacoma, WA. These are not the ED model, but they do have the latest fully multi-coated optics.

Anyone interested can ontact Ed (who is not me) at: shop@camerashoptacoma.com, or call 253-627-4158. He's asking $389, which as I recall was the standard retail price about 1999.

Are they worth the investment? They would be to me if I didn't already own several 804s.

Happy Holidays.

Pinewood

Sunday 4th December 2005, 21:20

Elkcub raises the question as to whether old stock of the 804's are worth the price. To answer the question, one has to consider the binocular's performance and what else may be available.

I have been examining a Swift 804 HR/5 glass and I have found it to be very interesting. Comparing it with roof prism glasses would be unfair, and comparing it to the Nikon 8x30 EII and Nikon 8x32SE would also be problematic because the Swift has larger objectives. Optically, its greatest asset, wide FOV, is barely offered in any roof glass, while the close focus and waterproof qualities of a roof are hardly available in a Porro binocular.

However, the Nikon Porros and the old Swift may be compared on the basis of price point with some justification. The EII retails for under $US300 and the SE retails for a little less than $US599. This put the 804, if available, between the two. I have already written about the two Nikons in

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=34701 post #24

The 804 is rather like the EII with Swift having almost as a wide field of view as the EII and substantially the same apparent fields of view. I would put the edge sharpness of the Swift as right between both Nikons. Like the EII the Swift's sharp center is about the same as the SE's field of view.

All three have acceptable eye relief with the SE having the best specs. As I wrote earlier, the SE is well known for giving some users, the kidney bean effect. This not a problem with the other two binoculars.

All three binoculars have good central sharpness. The multicoating on each provides good contrast. I do not think any of them would be lacking in the field, even if a bench test would show some differences.

All three would be considered stiff focussing compared to a roof glass but in these Porros, one is moving the bridge and the oculars, not just some internal lenses. The Swift has the widest focussing knob, making it a bit easier to use.

All three use fold down rubber eyecups, so there is equality in being old fashioned. As I wear eyeglasses, I should point out that the Swift seems to have better suppression of reflection because of strong sidelight entering the oculars. This should be of little importance to those who do not wear specs.

I did not have the opportunity to determine how much advantage the larger exit pupil and higher twilight factor of the Swift translates into greater utility at dusk or penetratrion of shadow on dull days. Today, a very overcast wintry day, the Swift performed very well. I spotted a woodpecker, not very far off but beneath a tree. The glass revealed the red crown of the red bellied woodpecker, which my naked eye missed.

I like the 804 because of its wide view, even with its greater bulk. Swift managed to find a nice compromise in the 44 mm. objectives, between 32 mm and 50 mm. At that price point, even with its bulk, it compares well to either of the two Nikons, the most comparable competition, at the price point. If both a wide FOV and greater twilight factor are important criteria than the Swift has the advantage over both Nikons. The greater exit pupil does make it easier to align the objectives, the oculars and the user' eyes. If the user has no trouble with the SE's kidney bean effect, with its 60º apparent field of view, and if the user requires a flat field, the SE may have the advantage, at a substantially higher price. If the user likes a wide field and has no problem with a 3.75 mm. exit pupil, the EII may be right

Since all binoculars are compromises, and the users have their own criteria, this binocular would be worth investigating, if the vendor has a full refund policy. I always recommend trying a glass out yourself, not taking others' advice.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

elkcub

Monday 5th December 2005, 21:00

Pinewood

Tuesday 6th December 2005, 00:48

Arthur,

Many thanks for a well thought out review. One reason I became so interested in the 804's history is that they are such a fantastic birding binocular. IMO they compare very well with my Nikon E and Swarovski SLC optics — and those were chosen over other top end products. It continues to mystify me why Swift 804 Audubons seem(ed) to be an "also ran," particularly since they are really superior in low-light birding conditions when it matters most. I'll be looking forward to your observations made at dawn or dusk, and perhaps we can continue the discussion.

Happy Holidays
-ed
Ed,

I am not likely to watch birds at dawn or dusk, but I have been trying to penetrate shadow on cloudy days. I did not see any birds in shadow on this overcast day but I did not instantly recognize a tufted titmouse in the trees, until I used the binocular and the Audubon helped me distinguish the coloring of a female cardinal, also in the trees. The Audubon did not serve me well looking at stars well above the horizon but I have difficulties doing that with an 8x50. However, a unipod helps solve my shakes.

Another bird watcher raised the issue of durability, holding that the Nikons were better built than the Audubons. Certainly, Nikon has a good guarantee. I try to take good care of my optics and the only problem I have encountered involved trauma. Nevertheless, most binoculars should be regarded as suffering from slow, minor deterioration. We should review their conditions with fresh eyes, every few years.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :egghead:

elkcub

Tuesday 6th December 2005, 01:50

Another bird watcher raised the issue of durability, holding that the Nikons were better built than the Audubons. Certainly, Nikon has a good guarantee. I try to take good care of my optics and the only problem I have encountered involved trauma. Nervtheless, most binoculars should be regarded as suffering from slow, minor deterioration. We should review their conditions with fresh eyes, every few years.

Hi Arthur,

Nah, there is no basis for saying Nikons are built better. I own an 8x30 Mikron, and a 10x35 E. Each required collimation, the latter when brand new.

Since acquiring my 804R Audubons I've been able to bird longer, well into darker conditions. It's most remarkable. In addition, naturalness of viewing is superior than with anything else I own. That part I can't quite explain, but I think you commented on the same phenomenon.

They'll have to pry 'em out of my cold, dead hands. :king:

-ed

Pinewood

Tuesday 6th December 2005, 01:59

Hi Arthur,

Nah, there is no basis for saying Nikons are built better. I own an 8x30 Mikron, and a 10x35 E. Each required collimation, the latter when brand new.

Since acquiring my 804R Audubons I've been able to bird longer, well into darker conditions. It's most remarkable. In addition, naturalness of viewing is superior than with anything else I own. That part I can't quite explain, but I think you commented on the same phenomenon.

They'll have to pry 'em out of my cold, dead hands. :king:

-ed
Ed,

Certainly, the Audubon, like few other binouclars, feels like it belongs at your eyes. The basic design has been in production for almost four decades, which is a recommendation in itself.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

elkcub

Thursday 29th December 2005, 07:52

Dear 804 Audubon owners,

In recording the serial numbers of my own Swift 804 Audubon binoculars, it dawned on me that the first two digits may correspond with the year of manufacture. If true, this would be a great way to refine the dates for each model type.

It would be most appreciated if those who own 804 Audubons could post the Type as shown in our paper attached to Post #15 at http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=472573#post472573 as well as the first two (or more) digits of the serial number. The results will be summarized and corrections made to the paper accordingly.

Of course, it is possible that the date is not coded into the serial number, but that should become readily apparent after a few responses.

Many thanks for your assistance,
Ed

Renze de Vries

Thursday 29th December 2005, 23:58

Hi Ed,

Heavens, you could very well be right! See this:

Type 1c - 70****
Type 4a - 86****
Type 4b - 87****

happy new year!

Renze

elkcub

Friday 30th December 2005, 00:46

Hi Ed,

Heavens, you could very well be right! See this:

Type 1c - 70****
Type 4a - 86****
Type 4b - 87****

happy new year!

Renze

Renze,

Yes, thanks. So far it's holding up rather well. I didn't know you had a Type 1c. Thought you were after a 1a — but then who can be choosy? Any info. on the Type 3a or 3b you were involved with? I may email Fan Tau about his 4c. Otto also has one or two, plus a Kestrel 726, which also seems to be date coded judging by mine.

Happy New Year to you and yours.
Ed
PS. I take it the 4b is a 4b(1), i.e., an HR/5 marked Multi-Coated Optics. Right?

Pinewood

Friday 30th December 2005, 01:27

Ed,

Late model 4b 99****

Arthur Pinewood

elkcub

Friday 30th December 2005, 01:36

Ed,

Late model 4b 99****

Arthur Pinewood

Thanks, Arthur.

My Kestrel is marked 98**** and has the same HR/5 Fully Multi-Coated optics as your Audubon 4b. So far things are falling into place.

-ed

Renze de Vries

Friday 30th December 2005, 19:58

PS. I take it the 4b is a 4b(1), i.e., an HR/5 marked Multi-Coated Optics. Right?

You're right Ed, it's a 4b(1) indeed.

R

ceasar

Saturday 31st December 2005, 02:59

I have a late model no. 804 purchased new around 1999/2000 from`Hawk Mt. Store. It is designated HR/5. SN is 9911**.

Hope this helps,
Bob

PS Fine piece of research you guys did!

elkcub

Saturday 31st December 2005, 04:58

I have a late model no. 804 purchased new around 1999/2000 from`Hawk Mt. Store. It is designated HR/5. SN is 9911**.

Hope this helps,
Bob

PS Fine piece of research you guys did!

Ceasar,

Many thanks. If your HR/5 were made in 1999 it should have rather green coatings and be marked "Fully Multi-Coated." That would make it a Type 4b(2). Is this correct?

Thanks, and Happy New Year.
-ed
PS. How do you like using the Audubon by comparison with other binoculars?

ceasar

Sunday 1st January 2006, 08:46

Ceasar,

Many thanks. If your HR/5 were made in 1999 it should have rather green coatings and be marked "Fully Multi-Coated." That would make it a Type 4b(2). Is this correct?

Thanks, and Happy New Year.
-ed
PS. How do you like using the Audubon by comparison with other binoculars?
Ed
It is marked "fully multi coated" and the coatings have a dominant green hue with a magenta undertone.

When I wore glasses I used a Leica 7 x 42 BA for about 15 years and was spoiled by their very wide field. After I had cataract surgery and no longer needed glasses I found out the eye relief on the Leica was a bit too long. I had to hold the oculars a quarter inch or so out from my eyes to get a perfect view. The Swift Audubon took care of this problem and gave me the wide field I wanted with more power to boot and better contrast. My main complaint was their bulk and width. (I use all 70 degrees plus for my interpupillary alignment with it's exit pupils.) I solved this problem a year or two later by getting a Nikon 8 x 30 EII which I find to be the perfect compromise for me. I still use the Audubon around my house and when I am on the deck lazing around and for casual astronomy. Their 44mm objective lens picks up colors in high flying hawks better than any other bin I have. At least that is my impression.

When ever anybody asks me what is the best binocular they can buy for a reasonable amount of money I always recommend they get Swift's model 804. Unless they wear glasses. Then the discussion gets more involved.

Happy New Year,
Bob

elkcub

Sunday 1st January 2006, 21:23

Otto McDiesel

Tuesday 3rd January 2006, 17:14

Bob,

I always used Swaro SLCs, starting with the 8x30 and moving on to the 10x42 and both pocket binoculars. An impulse buy of a 1950s wide-field Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) 8x30 got me interested in a wide view, but it wasn't until my first Audubon 804R purchase that the combination of image size and wide field started coming together. Too bad they're getting harder to find than chicken lips. :-O

Happy New Year,
Ed

I've used a Kestrel 10x50 marked HR/5 for two years of daily work. They were an absolute joy, and i loved them to death. Beautiful bright wide angle views, sharp and true colors. Really magnificient. They had the best depth of field of any binoculars that i have seen, and wonderful tridimensional views. Close focus was about 4.5 meters, good enough most of the time. They died a horrific death, submerged in an alkali lake.

The roof prism Swift 8.5x44 is a really good binocular, and i found that the 8.5x42 Brunton Epochs ($1500) were not better.

elkcub

Tuesday 3rd January 2006, 19:23

I've used a Kestrel 10x50 marked HR/5 for two years of daily work. They were an absolute joy, and i loved them to death. Beautiful bright wide angle views, sharp and true colors. Really magnificient. They had the best depth of field of any binoculars that i have seen, and wonderful tridimensional views. Close focus was about 4.5 meters, good enough most of the time. They died a horrific death, submerged in an alkali lake.

The roof prism Swift 8.5x44 is a really good binocular, and i found that the 8.5x42 Brunton Epochs ($1500) were not better.

Otto,

I greatly appreciate your comments. A few months ago I lucked out with a mint HR/5 10x50 Kestrel on eBay. (Your earlier comments led me to buy them. $67 wasn't too much to pay, I hope? ;)) Like the most recent Type 4b(2) Audubon, they are fully multi-coated. The weight and balance are superb, and the combination of 10x and 70 deg. AFOV addictive. I also experience magnficent spatial depth that can't be equalled by my 10x42 SLC. No doubt this is aided by the very wide stereo base.

Frankly, I've been so taken with the Kestrel that I use them to the exclusion of all else, except in very bad weather and for butterflies. I guess you summed it up as well as can be: they are a joy to use. How sad that yours met with such a horrible fate. How frustrating that they are no longer made. Since far fewer were probably sold than HR/5 Audubons, this story of bino-excellence could be lost forever.

I'm now looking to see if the Model 826's history can be pieced together as a sequel to the 804's. Any information about them in the form of catalogs or ads would be appreciated. Maybe Swift will help out again too.

Many thanks,
Ed

ceasar

Monday 6th February 2006, 04:38

elkcub

Tuesday 7th February 2006, 06:45

Ed,
My apologies for this belated question. On these binoculars, at the front end of the left prism housing, is an indentation in the plastic where it attaches to the focusing wheel mechanism. Inside this curved, trapazoidal shaped indentation is stamped the following: J-B56.

Query? Do you know what this means?

Thanks,
Bob

Bob,

You may wish to review the article Renze de Vries and I published on this thread, Post #15 (if you haven't already). J-B56 is the hallmark of the Japanese manufacturer, Hiyoski Kogaku, Ltd. All indications are that this firm made Swift 804 Audubons starting with Type 2 (see article). The original Type 1, back in the early 1960s, were made by Tamron Optical, J-E-45. The symbol "J-," incidentally, combines the two letters "J" and "L." The article provides a link to a useful list of Japanese manufacturers.

Ed
PS. I assume you are referring to a model 804? If you're talking about model 820, then finding this hallmark on it is very interesting. Please let me know.

ceasar

Tuesday 7th February 2006, 09:20

Thanks Ed,
They are model 804.
I think I'll review this entire thread again. More thoroughly this time.
Bob

trashbird

Tuesday 21st February 2006, 01:19

elkcub

Tuesday 21st February 2006, 19:49

I owned a pair of the old Swift Audubon 804s for awhile. I wish I could tell you more but it was several years ago. My only experience with top-notch optics has been taking a look through others' binoculars, but I would say the Audubon 804s had the best center-field resolution and overall brightness I have ever seen (I haven't looked through the Nikon E2 or Nikon SE though). The reason why I sold them is because of the 10-12 mm of eye relief, and I just couldn't deal with it as a glasses wearer. I would take off my glasses and look through the 804s and feel very sad that this wasn't the view I could see all the time when birding. This binoc also kicks butt for sky observation as well, with its huge FOV.

I wonder -- it was said that the eyepieces are a 5-element design. Is this the classic Konig design that is in so many wide-field telescope eyepieces? And what kept Swift from making the new waterproof Audubon porro with more eye relief? The laws of physics? Or just basically puttting the same optical design in a different body?

Sorry to take this long in responding. I didn't notice your post.

Swift refers to the 5-element eyepiece as an Erfle ocular. I don't know the difference from a Konig design, but apparently the Erfle type is used for wide field applications. There are 6-element versions too.

I get the feeling that you may have been using one of the early large body type Audubons with 445 ft. FOV and 11-12 mm eye relief. The later small body Type 4's and the current Model 820 with 430 ft. FOV have a much nicer eye relief of about 14 mm. Could you take a look at our article on Post #15 and tell me which model you had?

The Type 4's, starting with the 804R, and Model 820 also have first class multi-coatings. They are commonly found on eBay at reasonable used prices, and will be re-collimated, if necessary, by Swift for about $60. This is one instance where I think a repair cost is very reasonable to get this kind of value.

Ed

trashbird

Tuesday 21st February 2006, 20:42

Sorry to take this long in responding. I didn't notice your post.

Swift refers to the 5-element eyepiece as an Erfle ocular. I don't know the difference from a Konig design, but apparently the Erfle type is used for wide field applications. There are 6-element versions too.

I get the feeling that you may have been using one of the early large body type Audubons with 445 ft. FOV and 11-12 mm eye relief. The later small body Type 4's and the current Model 820 with 430 ft. FOV have a much nicer eye relief of about 14 mm. Could you take a look at our article on Post #15 and tell me which model you had?

The Type 4's, starting with the 804R, and Model 820 also have first class multi-coatings. They are commonly found on eBay at reasonable used prices, and will be re-collimated, if necessary, by Swift for about $60. This is one instance where I think a repair cost is very reasonable to get this kind of value.

Ed

I will look at the article -- which I want to do anyway when I get the time -- and try to see if I remember which model it was.

There is an astronomy shop here in my city that sells a lot of used binoculars. I remember seeing the HR4 as well as the newer 804s. I do remember that the older models did not have the multicoatings. I am curious now to visit this shop again -- its been a few years. If he still has some different models for sale, I will see if I can take some digital images of them.

As a side note, I bought from this same shop a pair of 7x35 Audubon roof prisms that are discussed on another thread. They were waterproof, but achieved this through having a glass cover over each eyepiece, and the entire eye piece would move up and down underneath the glass as you focussed. They were nice binocs, built like a tank -- there was a focus knob both in front of the central hinge and behind that worked together. Because of the moving eyepiece for focussing, the eyerelief was better close up and got worse far away. Which was why I returned them and got a different binocular. I can see now that these were something of a rarity. Oops! (Not the forst "oops" and not the last, I am sure.)

trashbird

Tuesday 21st February 2006, 22:19

Sorry to take this long in responding. I didn't notice your post.

Swift refers to the 5-element eyepiece as an Erfle ocular. I don't know the difference from a Konig design, but apparently the Erfle type is used for wide field applications. There are 6-element versions too.

I get the feeling that you may have been using one of the early large body type Audubons with 445 ft. FOV and 11-12 mm eye relief. The later small body Type 4's and the current Model 820 with 430 ft. FOV have a much nicer eye relief of about 14 mm. Could you take a look at our article on Post #15 and tell me which model you had?

The Type 4's, starting with the 804R, and Model 820 also have first class multi-coatings. They are commonly found on eBay at reasonable used prices, and will be re-collimated, if necessary, by Swift for about $60. This is one instance where I think a repair cost is very reasonable to get this kind of value.

Ed

Hi Ed,

I scanned through your fine history, and I can tell you with some certainty that I had the 804 4b2. It was definitely fully-multicoated. Maybe it technically had 14mm of eyerelief, but it still cut off a good 20% of the FOV for me. As Steve Ingrahm pointed out, this still leaves an eyeglasses wearer with a large FOV. I just really like to see the field stop when I look through binocs.

Interesting about the Erfle 5-lens design. I think that Edmund Optics still offers an Erfle-design telescope eyepiece. From what I have read, Erfles have a wide FOV but definitely lose resolution on the outer part of the field. Konigs, I think, are much more prevalent these days in lower-priced wide-field eyepieces. It too apart an inexpensive binoc once -- a Swift Plover, I think -- and saw that the eyepiece was a Konig design. Shockingly, one of the lens elements was plastic! (I really try not to take binoculars apart because I have never put one back together again).

The super-duper wide-field telescope eyepieces, the Naglers, Pan-Optics, etc., have over 8 elements, I think, and may be a variation on the Erfle design. These kind of eyepieces are huge, and would really weigh a binocular down -- not to mention, all those elements really dim the image. However, with new thinner lens designs, and an oversize objective, I am thinking you could build a dream binocular -- say an 8x56 with 8-element Nagler type eyepieces, and 80-degree FOV sharp to the edges, with the brightness of a good 8x42. Porro-design probably, to get the big prisms necessary. And with a reinforced polycarbonate body and modern thin-lens design, it wouldn't weigh much more than the Audubon 804.

At any rate, I'm no engineer. Just a dreamer.

By the way, it was indeed the Swift 825 7x35 roof-prism Audubon that I owned for a short while.

elkcub

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 00:23

Hi Ed,

I scanned through your fine history, and I can tell you with some certainty that I had the 804 4b2. It was definitely fully-multicoated. Maybe it technically had 14mm of eyerelief, but it still cut off a good 20% of the FOV for me. As Steve Ingrahm pointed out, this still leaves an eyeglasses wearer with a large FOV. I just really like to see the field stop when I look through binocs.

Interesting about the Erfle 5-lens design. I think that Edmund Optics still offers an Erfle-design telescope eyepiece. From what I have read, Erfles have a wide FOV but definitely lose resolution on the outer part of the field. Konigs, I think, are much more prevalent these days in lower-priced wide-field eyepieces. It too apart an inexpensive binoc once -- a Swift Plover, I think -- and saw that the eyepiece was a Konig design. Shockingly, one of the lens elements was plastic! (I really try not to take binoculars apart because I have never put one back together again).

The super-duper wide-field telescope eyepieces, the Naglers, Pan-Optics, etc., have over 8 elements, I think, and may be a variation on the Erfle design. These kind of eyepieces are huge, and would really weigh a binocular down -- not to mention, all those elements really dim the image. However, with new thinner lens designs, and an oversize objective, I am thinking you could build a dream binocular -- say an 8x56 with 8-element Nagler type eyepieces, and 80-degree FOV sharp to the edges, with the brightness of a good 8x42. Porro-design probably, to get the big prisms necessary. And with a reinforced polycarbonate body and modern thin-lens design, it wouldn't weigh much more than the Audubon 804.

At any rate, I'm no engineer. Just a dreamer.

By the way, it was indeed the Swift 825 7x35 roof-prism Audubon that I owned for a short while.

Hello trashbird,

I feel blessed that I don't really have to wear glasses, although the 828 Audubon roof has proven the value of correcting my unbalanced astigmatism by keeping them on. I was out today with the 804R (Type 4b(1)), and again enjoyed the wide FOV and larger 8.5 image with unadorned eyes. The eyecups are wisely engineered to narrow down and hence fit my eye sockets so well there's very little opening for sidelight. In the end, that what turned me off about the 8x30 E2. I couldn't adapt to the very wide eyecups that let in so much sidelight.

My requirements for binoculars are very modest. Of course, they should provide an excellent view and be comfortable to use, but they must also be quality made and good looking. For some reason, brands beginning with "Sw" have these qualities. One of the things I like about 804 Audubons is their rich history and collector potential. I just got an 804 HR/5 ED on eBay, incidentally, which may turn out to be the centerpiece. It's even named after me. :'D

ED

Pinewood

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 01:21

Ed,

Have you tried Swiss Navy brand? My brother bought one for $20.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

ceasar

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 04:38

[QUOTE=elkcub]Hello trashbird,
In the end, that what turned me off about the 8x30 E2. I couldn't adapt to the very wide eyecups that let in so much sidelight.

Ed,
Did you try blinders?
Bob
:'D

elkcub

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 19:10

[QUOTE=elkcub]Hello trashbird,
In the end, that what turned me off about the 8x30 E2. I couldn't adapt to the very wide eyecups that let in so much sidelight.

Ed,
Did you try blinders?
Bob
:'D

I may look like one, but I'm not a horse. |:P|

elkcub

Wednesday 22nd February 2006, 19:23

Ed,

Have you tried Swiss Navy brand? My brother bought one for $20.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Arthur,

He was gypped. $9.99 would have done it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7211421726&category=31711

Almost forgot. Does he like it?

Ed

Pinewood

Thursday 23rd February 2006, 00:26

Arthur,

He was gypped. $9.99 would have done it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7211421726&category=31711

Almost forgot. Does he like it?

Ed
Ed,

He might have boufght two for his children. He uses a 1918 Talbot Reel 6x30 Signal Corps. Model E, which I gave him, twenty years, ago. Talbot Reel made fishing reels, but got a contract to assemble binoculars for the U.S. Army.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

elkcub

Thursday 23rd February 2006, 06:39

Ed,

He might have boufght two for his children. He uses a 1918 Talbot Reel 6x30 Signal Corps. Model E, which I gave him, twenty years, ago. Talbot Reel made fishing reels, but got a contract to assemble binoculars for the U.S. Army.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Ah ha, ... two at $9.99 each. The kids must love the blister packs as much as the binoculars. Okay, more than the binoculars.

I'm still contemplating a fishing reel company being contracted to assemble Army binoculars. Was that the US Army? There must be a basic principle here somewhere. Sounds fishy, but still deja vu. :-C

Ed

elkcub

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 07:05

...
I just got an 804 HR/5 ED on eBay, incidentally, which may turn out to be the centerpiece. It's even named after me. :'D
ED

Today was my first opportunity to put them to the test at Shoreline Nature Preserve in Palo Alto. The mid-1990s BVD comparison by Steve Ingraham with the standard 804 really didn't prepare me for this extraordinary experience. The difference was not subtle at all, more like being given a new pair of eyes. No doubt that sounds like a dramatic overstatement, but, trust me, you're not likely to hear me say that again about another optical product. The previously owned specimen that arrived two days ago from England is tack sharp and literally bursts with vivid color that simply can't be described. Having a standard 804 Audubon with multi-coating to compare it with, as well as a fully-multi-coated 826 Kestrel, I have no hesitation saying that ED glass coupled with air-spaced objectives and improved eyepieces made this the veritable masterpiece of all 804 Audubons. In addition to being my reference standard for optical quality, it will be my personal birding binocular from now on, replacing the penultimate Kestrel for all but long distinace viewing. Even for that application, though, the virtual absence of color fringing may still make the 804 ED a better choice.

Perhaps to usher in my new eyes, all three teal species showed up today in full plumage: cinnamon, green-winged, and blue-winged. What better instrument to admire them simultaneously, within the same extra-wide field of view? Twenty three other species also showed up for close inspection, and all passed with flying colors.

Ed

richt

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 14:26

T I have no hesitation saying that ED glass coupled with air-spaced objectives and improved eyepieces made this the veritable masterpiece of all 804 Audubons. In addition to being my reference standard for optical quality, it will be my personal birding binocular from now on, replacing the penultimate Kestrel for all but long distinace viewing. Even for that application, though, the virtual absence of color fringing may still make the 804 ED a better choice.

Ed

Hi Ed

Glad you have had an enhancing experience with the 804 ED's
I wonder if the 820 ED later model shows this colour purity
I know some BF members prefer the build style/quality of the 804 but if the 820 ED is on par optically then for some its smaller lighter body might be the best thing at the price
Can anyone comment on the ED benefit in the later models ?

Just as an aside a near mint Swift Supreme 10 x 50 (420 ft fov) went for less than £90 recently on the famous bid site
I was sorely tempted as this appeared to be a wide field version of the Audubon but at 10 x

Regards
Rich

Renze de Vries

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 16:34

Just as an aside a near mint Swift Supreme 10 x 50 (420 ft fov) went for less than £90 recently on the famous bid site
I was sorely tempted as this appeared to be a wide field version of the Audubon but at 10 x

Rich,

As far as I'm informed, Ed had to let this one go because he splashed out on the ED...
But you're right, this Supreme IS the Audubon at 10 power. And as such the precursor to the Kestrel. As far as our information goes the Audubon 10x50 was issued in the USA under that name, while in Europe it was called (and designated) Supreme. Later the Audubon as well as the Supreme designation disappeared and it became the Kestrel. Important to note here is that in the meantime the revision of the Audubon took place (more compact, lighter body, etc.), with the result that the 10x50 Supreme belongs to the large body, heavyweight category, while the 10x50 Kestrel is much lighter and smaller. However, a 'true' Audubon 10x50 can be found in the large as well as the small body type.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ed.

Renze

richt

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 19:09

Rich,

As far as I'm informed, Ed had to let this one go because he splashed out on the ED...
But you're right, this Supreme IS the Audubon at 10 power. And as such the precursor to the Kestrel. As far as our information goes the Audubon 10x50 was issued in the USA under that name, while in Europe it was called (and designated) Supreme. Later the Audubon as well as the Supreme designation disappeared and it became the Kestrel. Important to note here is that in the meantime the revision of the Audubon took place (more compact, lighter body, etc.), with the result that the 10x50 Supreme belongs to the large body, heavyweight category, while the 10x50 Kestrel is much lighter and smaller. However, a 'true' Audubon 10x50 can be found in the large as well as the small body type.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ed.

Renze

Hi Renze

Thanks for the additional info it did indeed look like the heavier larger bodied Swift model type
Not many 10 x binoculars have an 8 degree field and good image qualities so still an optical bargain i believe at under £90

Regards
Rich

Renze de Vries

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 20:25

84.00 GBP to be exact (= 147 USD = 122 Euro).

Renze

elkcub

Thursday 2nd March 2006, 20:44

Hi Ed

Glad you have had an enhancing experience with the 804 ED's
I wonder if the 820 ED later model shows this colour purity
I know some BF members prefer the build style/quality of the 804 but if the 820 ED is on par optically then for some its smaller lighter body might be the best thing at the price
Can anyone comment on the ED benefit in the later models ?

Just as an aside a near mint Swift Supreme 10 x 50 (420 ft fov) went for less than £90 recently on the famous bid site
I was sorely tempted as this appeared to be a wide field version of the Audubon but at 10 x

Regards
Rich

Hi Rich (and Renze),

Yes, I was also sorely tempted by the Supreme, and sorry to see it go. However, binoculars are flowing in and out of my house at a prodigious rate. It would have been great to have it, in preparation for the Kestrel history Renze and I are considering.

Not owning an 820 ED I can only speculate that it might be superior to the standard model by an equal margin. It would certainly be worthwhile to look into, since they are still available. However, I'm stopping with the 804s, primarily for financial reasons. I have briefly compared the standard 804, Type 4b(1), and 820 — and came away liking the 804 better. This may have been because I was more familiar with the feel of the 804, or because the demo models were not cared for properly. In any case the bridge construction seemed to be the weak point of the 820, which has been commented upon by others. Again, the binocular had not been well cared for.

Now having observed this ED glass effect, I'm also very curious about other products, such as Minox. As is often the case, however, other variables are also mixed in, e.g, aspheric lenses.

Regards,
ED

elkcub

Sunday 12th March 2006, 20:41

Today was my first opportunity to put them to the test at Shoreline Nature Preserve in Palo Alto. The mid-1990s BVD comparison by Steve Ingraham with the standard 804 really didn't prepare me for this extraordinary experience. The difference was not subtle at all, more like being given a new pair of eyes. No doubt that sounds like a dramatic overstatement, but, trust me, you're not likely to hear me say that again about another optical product. ...
Ed

:news: After using the 804ED (between torrential rains), they continue to hold me in thrall. I can recall only one similar experience. It occurred after I finally put my analog HiFi equipment together and found myself eagerly playing each record as if it were brand new, to reflect on the subtle nuances that were now revealed.

It's happened again. These wonderful binoculars reveal every bird in a new and subtle light, and I find myself eagerly marveling at commonplace species that have long escaped my attention. Since I recently changed to Kenn Kaufman's field guide, it will be used to reflect the new ED's life list.

ED

trashbird

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 03:42

:news: After using the 804ED (between torrential rains), they continue to hold me in thrall. I can recall only one similar experience. It occurred after I finally put my analog HiFi equipment together and found myself eagerly playing each record as if it were brand new, to reflect on the subtle nuances that were now revealed.

It's happened again. These wonderful binoculars reveal every bird in a new and subtle light, and I find myself eagerly marveling at commonplace species that have long escaped my attention. Since I recently changed to Kenn Kaufman's field guide, it will be used to reflect the new ED's life list.

ED

Hmm, comparing the ED experience to the analog audio experience. What sort of audio equipment were you using? It's an interesting comparison to make. There is a lot of argument about whether analog is an improvement over digital -- or what the nature of the "improvement" is.

As far as the ED Audubons go, didn't you mention that there are other optical improvements in this binoc as well? I certainly believe you about the dramatic difference between the 804s and the EDs -- but could it be something else -- or the sum of all the improvements?

elkcub

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 06:52

Hmm, comparing the ED experience to the analog audio experience. What sort of audio equipment were you using? It's an interesting comparison to make. There is a lot of argument about whether analog is an improvement over digital -- or what the nature of the "improvement" is.

As far as the ED Audubons go, didn't you mention that there are other optical improvements in this binoc as well? I certainly believe you about the dramatic difference between the 804s and the EDs -- but could it be something else -- or the sum of all the improvements?

Well, I was really referring to the totality of the experience, which in each case has made me enthusiastic to start afresh. Auditory and visual experiences can explode with "color," and devices that bring this out can result in a kind of revelatory experience (epiphany?).

Several factors might account for the improvement including the ED glass itself, air spacing of the objective lenses, or modifications to the oculars, which, incidentally, resulted in a slightly improved shorter eye relief (1mm). It could be a combination of the above, or that minor optical tweaking was done with the air spaced lenses, or greater care was taken in component matching during assembly. What reinforces my belief that that this is characteristic of the 804ED, however, is Steve Ingraham's earlier BVD comment:
...The ED glass in the objective does, as you might expect, improve color depth and definition. Colors are slightly more intense, and you can see more different shades and gradiations of the same color. The yellow of a Meadowlark's breast or the blue of a Mountain bluebird's, one solid color through standard binoculars, shows an amazing range of subtly different hues through the ED glass. The improvement, when compared directly to the standard Audubon is very subtle, but definitely there. The effect is probably heightened by the slightly improved contrast that the full multicoating provides. (c. 1993)
Note that he distinguishes between the intensity of colors vs. their shades and gradations, and clearly associates the latter with the presence of ED glass. This brings me to the simile you picked up on: analog vs digital sound. The use of ED glass seems to represent a continuous analog mechanism for control of the color spectrum, whereas, multi-coating, by analogy, is a discrete filter. It's akin to the audio difference between my superb Grace F-9E cartridge with ruby stylus, also no longer on the market, and the much less delicate hi-end Monarchy D/A converter.

Ed

John Traynor

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 10:10

Well, I was really referring to the totality of the experience, which in each case has made me enthusiastic to start afresh. Auditory and visual experiences can explode with "color," and devices that bring this out can result in a kind of revelatory experience (epiphany?).

Several factors might account for the improvement including the ED glass itself, air spacing of the objective lenses, or modifications to the oculars, which, incidentally, resulted in a slightly improved shorter eye relief (1mm). It could be a combination of the above, or that minor optical tweaking was done with the air spaced lenses, or greater care was taken in component matching during assembly. What reinforces my belief that that this is characteristic of the 804ED, however, is Steve Ingraham's earlier BVD comment:

Note that he distinguishes between the intensity of colors vs. their shades and gradations, and clearly associates the latter with the presence of ED glass. This brings me to the simile you picked up on: analog vs digital sound. The use of ED glass seems to represent a continuous analog mechanism for control of the color spectrum, whereas, multi-coating, by analogy, is a discrete filter. It's akin to the audio difference between my superb Grace F-9E cartridge with ruby stylus, also no longer on the market, and the much less delicate hi-end Monarchy D/A converter.

Ed
Ed,

You could simplify by saying the 804ED is similar to the amazing Nikon SE, a binocular that delivers more color and detail than one can imagine.

John

elkcub

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 19:11

Ed,

You could simplify by saying the 804ED is similar to the amazing Nikon SE, a binocular that delivers more color and detail than one can imagine.

John

If you enjoy the Nikon SE as much as I do the Swift 804ED, you're also happier than words can express.

Ed

elkcub

Tuesday 14th March 2006, 19:27

For those with historical interests, it has come to light that "SP" and "SPWA" binoculars mentioned on several earlier posts were of British/European origin. SP stands for Swift-Pyser. Of course, WA still means wide-angle. More digging is being done in this area, but it appears that several SP configurations were marketed that did not have US counterparts, such as a 9x42 (not called an Audubon). Renze has a mint one in his possession.

Ed

Renze de Vries

Wednesday 15th March 2006, 00:44

Thanks for the invitation Ed. Right, it came in from Italy a week ago. So I'll report.
Well, the 9x42 was mentioned by Otto McDiesel in an earlier thread (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=47263) as one of the more illusive Swifts. Information was scarce then (and now) but one thing was clear: the 9x42 wasn't an Audubon but one of a series of three (as we do know now: four) models just below the top range, with prices at about 75% of the Audubons. The series must have ran for a short time and indeed, were probably issued in Europe only.
But what is it like, this rare 9x42? Well, it's of amazing quality. It uses exactly the same housing as the Swift Audubon, only the SPWA is just a tad lighter, possibly from using one ocular lens less (?). Comparing the two I am completely unable to see any difference in optical quality! Sweet spot: same. Coating and colour bias: same. Brightness: same. FOV: according to specs there is a difference, but it's so marginal I can't see it. Because of the slightly higher magnification, resolution is better, and the shorter eye relief - just a few millimeters, eyecups exactly the same as on the Audubon - helps to completely avoid blackouts.
What's intriguing is, what Swift (or Pyser-Swift) could have motivated to put this instrument to the market. The configuration is unusual, but wasn't the 8.5x44 unusual enough? And why give it an optical quality indistinguishable from their flagship? Questions, questions, so we're still digging.

cheers,

Renze

elkcub

Friday 17th March 2006, 04:28

I just received two pairs of rubber tethered objective covers from B&H for the Audubon, at 6.95 each. They are very good quality rubber, and work with my 804R and 804ED very nicely, although I assume they were designed to fit the 820 and 820ED. They are too large for the 828 HHS. The manufacturer is Eagle Optics.

Ed

dozercsx

Wednesday 5th April 2006, 03:21

elkcub

Thursday 6th April 2006, 23:29

Greetings!

This is a most fascinating discussion, especially considering that I own an much loved, much valued pair of Audubons, which I wouldn't trade for ANYTHING - by the excellent reference article above, mine would be 804R type 4b(2) - fully multi coated designation. I purchased these in the late 1999, and my serial number is 97****, so they can clearly support the proposed 'year theory'.

I also note that, from the article, my particular Audubons share EVERYTHING with the ED except the actual ED glass itself - including the air spaced objectives and coatings, which the 4b(1)'s do not. This would make mine a perfect candidate for testing the article's assertion that the air spaced objectives may be as important optically as the ED glass itself. It would be interesting to compare a 4b(1), a 4b(2), and an ED side by side - one would think my glass would slot in between them, and perhaps even match the EDs performance-wise, if the assertion is correct. BTW my 804s are in perfect condition, due to the "harsh weather conditions" of Northern California, so if anyone is local and interested, I'll be there...!

All I know is that to my eye, my Audubons have not yet been bested by any comparison I've ever done (even by competitors requiring monthly payments!), and I feel very fortunate to be an original owner of this wonderful birding instrument.

Now here is a coincidence made in Heaven! We both live in Northern California. I'm in Sunnyvale, — and you? Perhaps we can get our optics together for a comparison.

I'm somewhat confused about your Audubon. If yours were made in 1997 they should be Fully Multi-Coated 804 HR/5s. We refer to them as Type 4b(2). However, I'm not aware, to this point, that any non-ED HR/5 was ever made with air-spaced objectives. Rather, it should simply have the latest multi-coating, which sets it apart from the original Type 4b(1) and earlier 804R (Type 4a).

Can you come up with evidence that your non-ED has air-spaced objectives? If so, this alone would be a juicy addition to the story.

Regardless of this issue, I own an 804R and 804ED that can be compared with your late model HR/5. Let's get together and do it one day soon.

ED

dozercsx

Saturday 8th April 2006, 04:01

Wow Elk, talk about a small world - I live in Sunnyvale! Sounds like a comparison's in short order (if the rain ever stops!) - Charleston slough and the Black Skimmers, here we come...!

My comment about the air-spaced objectives comes directly from the reference article, section 3, page 18, in the description of the 804ED (!) as quoted here:

"Optically, the air-spaced objective elements may be as significant as the use of ED glass, but that is usually overlooked. It was introduced with the standard type 4b(2) and is the forerunner of the current model 820ED."

My glasses are indeed the FMC, green coating, 804R HR/5 type 4b(2) - whew! - so as per above ,they should have air-space objectives. (I don't know what to look for to indicate such, as the objectives are sealed, so I'm merely taking the article at face value). I suppose the authors could verify how they determined that particular statement - all I know is that my 804's are razor sharp and very, very good!

DozerCSX

elkcub

Saturday 8th April 2006, 06:33

henry link

Saturday 8th April 2006, 14:31

elkcub

Saturday 8th April 2006, 17:47

You can determine from the outside whether your objectives are air spaced by examining the reflection pattern that returns from the objective surfaces.

It requires some careful examination and it's good to know what you're looking for. I've found it's easiest to place a single small light source like a bare light bulb behind me. Hold the binocular in front of you with the objective end pointing toward you. Use one eye only to examine the pattern of reflections of the light bulb in the objective. A cemented doublet will return 3 reflections of the bulb, 2 from the coated front and back surfaces of the doublet and 1 very dim (sometimes almost invisible) and usually tiny reflection from the cementing between the elements. An air spaced doublet will return 4 reflections, all of them showing the color tint of the coating. Be careful not to confuse objective reflections with prism reflections which you will be able to see from certain angles.

Henry,

I'll have to work at this a bit harder with an improved lighting set up. However, right now I can see considerable difference between the standard vs. ED objectives. The former shows three distinct reflections, and the latter four — but, they are clustered quite differently and of a different size (smaller). The colors of the reflections are also related to the surface coatings as you said. My Kestrel shows three reflections, like the Standard 804, but the colors are different due to full multi-coating.

Many thanks for the tip. I'll probably comment further after a little more work to perfect the technique. This may come in very handy because there is some (yet unsubstantiated) indication that the latter 804EDs had cemented doublets and were not air-spaced.

Thanks,
ED

dozercsx

Saturday 8th April 2006, 22:45

Elk,

I realized after my last comment that

(1) YOU were the author, so I was already speaking to The Source (!), and
(2) In re-re-reading, I see how I could have misread the quote - "with" could refer to the 804ED itself, instead of an air-spaced objective reference to the 804R 4b(2).

In addition, I checked the objectives this morning as per Henry's insightful instructions, and I definitely did not see 4 reflections, so I think you're right - mine does not appear to be an air-spaced objective. Of course, we can doublecheck when we meet for the full comparison.

Man, ya learn somethin' every day around here! Thanks...

Renze de Vries

Sunday 9th April 2006, 08:10

Henri,

What's not discussed here yet is the presumed OPTICAL advantage of air spaced objective lenses versus cemented doublets. I for one don't see any advantages. Do you?

Renze

trashbird

Sunday 9th April 2006, 19:21

Henri,

What's not discussed here yet is the presumed OPTICAL advantage of air spaced objective lenses versus cemented doublets. I for one don't see any advantages. Do you?

Renze

The air-spaced doublet objective has two more lens-to-air surfaces than a cemented doublet, making for more reflections. Before multicoating, that was more opportunity for light loss through the objective. Also, cemented doublets are cheaper to make and to mount in binoculars. The cemented lens surfaces don't have to be as well figured as in air-spaced doublets, and more care has to be used to get the individual elements of the air-spaced elements properly mounted and aligned. The benefit of the air-spaced doublets is that they offer more freedom for the optical designer to overcome certain abberations.

Here's an interesting source:

http://www.atmsite.org/contrib/Ceragioli/newrefractor/chapters/Chapter%203b.html

The introductory paragraphs for each section on cemeted and air-spaced doublets are pretty readable. After that, my eyes start crossing. But here is the science of it.

elkcub

Sunday 9th April 2006, 23:08

The air-spaced doublet objective has two more lens-to-air surfaces than a cemented doublet, making for more reflections. Before multicoating, that was more opportunity for light loss through the objective. Also, cemented doublets are cheaper to make and to mount in binoculars. The cemented lens surfaces don't have to be as well figured as in air-spaced doublets, and more care has to be used to get the individual elements of the air-spaced elements properly mounted and aligned. The benefit of the air-spaced doublets is that they offer more freedom for the optical designer to overcome certain abberations.

Here's an interesting source:

http://www.atmsite.org/contrib/Ceragioli/newrefractor/chapters/Chapter%203b.html

The introductory paragraphs for each section on cemeted and air-spaced doublets are pretty readable. After that, my eyes start crossing. But here is the science of it.

Wow, what a fantastic article! When the reader is done, a link to Chapter 4 can be found at the end to tell all about Apochromats and ED glass. Thank you, thank you.

ED
PS. Did I say thank you? :D

Renze de Vries

Sunday 9th April 2006, 23:18

trashbird

Sunday 9th April 2006, 23:27

Wow, what a fantastic article! When the reader is done, a link to Chapter 4 can be found at the end to tell all about Apochromats and ED glass. Thank you, thank you.

ED
PS. Did I say thank you? :D

You're welcome, ED. Thanks really should go to Mr. Ceragioli, who created this fine website.

elkcub

Monday 10th April 2006, 00:30

You're welcome, ED. Thanks really should go to Mr. Ceragioli, who created this fine website.

trashbird,

Ah, yes, but you get the credit for finding it for us — I've been looking for a comprehensive treatise to no avail.

Renze,

I started this Zeiss thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=55420 with a similar question in mind. But after 103 viewers there have been no comments. I probably framed the question wrong.

I suspect much of the issue is design implementation. Namely, although I see a stunning improvement in clarity and color gradation using the 804ED (as did Steve Ingraham in '93), other binos using ED or Flourite elements may or may not produce similar results. I wish I had a Zeiss dealer in the vicinity, since they seem to be the most likely candidates for low power binoculars.

ED

henry link

Monday 10th April 2006, 13:57

I'll add my thanks to trashbird for the link to Mr. Ceragioli's work. Chapter 4 is by far the best information I've seen on APO objectives. Notice that all the objective designs under discussion have much higher focal ratios than binocular objectives. The lowest focal ratio even discussed was the f/6 Zeiss APQ and that's an oil spaced Fluorite triplet. Binoculars belong in a completely different class of optics. The f/3.5-f/4.5 objectives in small binoculars, even if they are triplets and/or use ED glass have much higher levels of aberrations. I've never seen any binocular with optics good enough to reasonably be called a high quality telescope. The optics are just too fast. The subjective image quality only looks good, even in the best binoculars, because the magnification is kept extremely low by telescope standards. Even then the problems are visible, just not obtrusive.

trashbird

Monday 10th April 2006, 15:59

Trashbird,

Thank you. So by using air-spaced doublets it's possible to make optically better binoculars. But that's theory. How about practice? I mean, can we see the difference? And if so, where (in what binoculars on the market today)?

Renze

I'm not sure. I have to defer to Henry. I just found the website.

My Orion Short Tube 80 telescope has an F5 focal ratio (400mm focal length divided by 80mm objective diameter). It has an achromatic air-spaced doublet. It still has all kinds of chromatic abberation at high powers, though. According to the article, doublets larger than 70mm can't be cemented anyway.

What I hear ED saying about the improved optical quality of his 804ED's is that there is a greater saturation of color, not that there is necessarily much less chromatic abberation. Perhaps that is the most noticible benefit in using ED glass in a low focal-ratio design. The color saturation is so profound that chromatic abberation "appears" much less noticible. Dunno, just a WAG.

elkcub

Monday 10th April 2006, 18:00

I'm not sure. I have to defer to Henry. I just found the website.

My Orion Short Tube 80 telescope has an F5 focal ratio (400mm focal length divided by 80mm objective diameter). It has an achromatic air-spaced doublet. It still has all kinds of chromatic abberation at high powers, though. According to the article, doublets larger than 70mm can't be cemented anyway.

What I hear ED saying about the improved optical quality of his 804ED's is that there is a greater saturation of color, not that there is necessarily much less chromatic abberation. Perhaps that is the most noticible benefit in using ED glass in a low focal-ratio design. The color saturation is so profound that chromatic abberation "appears" much less noticible. Dunno, just a WAG.

Slight correction. The most notable quality improvement I see is continuous color gradation. Smooth color variations are more evident and less like a solid block when viewed with the 804ED. For me, the effect is stunning. I can't describe the perceptions any better than Steve Ingraham did in 1993 (see below), but I would say that his subjective description holds up well not only against the standard 804, but also all the other binoculars that I own. Unfortunately, I now find the others are missing something, — which is the down side.

I haven't had a chance to read all the technical material in detail, but my impression from yours and other sources is that the historical motivation for ED, Fluorite, etc. has been primarily astronomical applications. The color perception effects with low power optics for daylight terrestrial uses have not been considered much (strangely enough). In this regard, I would think we should be careful in generalizing, because the photo-chemical (photopic) adaptation and capabilities of the eye are very different in daylight. Color perception is minimal under dark adaptation (scotopic) conditions, and subtle daylight optical effects, such as these, would be literally impossible to appreciate at night.

Additional thoughts: There is a slight color fringing even with the 804ED at the extremes of the field, and the current 820ED is also said to be air spaced. Overall, I tend to think that Swift's use of ED glass is more or less joined at the hip with air spacing, i.e., by design, and so the contributions of glass and mechanics are essentially not separable. (Renze, if it turns out that some later 804EDs were not air-spaced, then the original optical design was most likely modified to allow the lenses to be cemented. But, that's not been verified yet, to my understanding.)

ED
The ED glass in the objective does, as you might expect, improve color depth and definition. Colors are slightly more intense, and you can see more different shades and gradiations of the same color. The yellow of a Meadowlark's breast or the blue of a Mountain bluebird's, one solid color through standard binoculars, shows an amazing range of subtly different hues through the ED glass.

trashbird

Monday 10th April 2006, 18:36

Point taken, ED. In birdwatching, color representation in the image is paramount. Both for enjoyment of the view and identification. Most birds are colorful. Even birds that look brown or grey in the distance, show subtle color variations with even cheap binoculars. I never realized how many Western Kingbirds there were in the suburban neighborhoods of my city. From a distance they all looked like mockingbirds or something to my untrained and non-binocular-enhanced eyes. Put a binocular on them and you see their lovely yellow chest and belly. Of course, now, I also know what a kingbird looks like by its flycatching movements.

At any rate, I think you're right about nighttime and daytime human optical perception. Color is important to astronomical observers, especially planetary observation, but astronomers use filters to artificially enhance images anyway. The problem with chromatic aberration for astronomical observers is not just the annoying purple or green fringing -- but chromatic aberration actually degrades resolution as well.

Amateur astronomers have now taken to using "minus-violet" filters in their eyepieces. These filters remove a very sharp portion of violet in the spectrum that is most apparent in color fringing. These filters make planetary and lunar images appear more yellowish, but the color fringing from achromatic objectives -- particularly on fast scopes -- is greatly reduced. Observers report better clarity of image as well as reduction of color fringing.

Can this be done in binoculars? I don't see why not. But for birdwatching, any unnatural coloration would defeat the purpose of a birding optic. For hunting, surveillance, astronomy, and many other uses of binoculars, minus-violet filtering might really make binoculars more effective.

I am considering getting one of these minus-violet filters for my Short-Tube 80 scope (which I use for both astronomy and birding). I am curious about the filter's effects for birdwatching. My guess is that in daylight use, the filter would induce too much artificial color for birdwatching use. In low-light situations however, when color in general is reduced and chromatic aberration is more pronounced, I wonder if the minus-violet filter might prove itself useful for bird observation.

elkcub

Monday 10th April 2006, 18:40

elkcub

Monday 10th April 2006, 19:09

...
My guess is that in daylight use, the filter would induce too much artificial color for birdwatching use. In low-light situations however, when color in general is reduced and chromatic aberration is more pronounced, I wonder if the minus-violet filter might prove itself useful for bird observation.

Ah, yes, the issue of absolute color fidelity crops up. I've got a cheap, stark-white bird bath made of plastic. I find the vertical pedistal is an excellent object to produce color fringing, to the point where I can calibrate the width of the green or purple fringes on either side. Being stark white it might also be a a starting point to appreciate the overall effect of color filters, or their ability to attenuate the fringes.

ED

henry link

Monday 10th April 2006, 23:37

Henry,

I missed your post at the end of the last page. As I recall you own a Zeiss FL. True? Does "FL" refer to a fluorite crystal lens being present (I know it's discussed on other threads, but forgot), and if so do you get similar perceptual effects concerning the fidelity of color gradation? Being an artist I know you would appreciate that quality.

Ed

Ed,

Yes, I have an 8x42 FL. No, it doesn't use Fluorite. It uses one of the fluoro-crown glass types. Zeiss says something like "glass containing Fluoride ions". I can see from tests with the magnification boosted to 64x that longitudinal CA in the FL is about 1/4 the level I see in typical binocular achromats.

I saw your post about color gradation. I don't think I can report anything similar with the FL, but I'm a chronic malcontent when it comes to binocular optics. They're never as bright or sharp or vivid as I want them to be. I think the FL stands up well compared to other binoculars. The center of it's field has a "transparency" compared to others which makes almost everthing I've compared it to look slightly veiled and dull. But if I compare one barrel of the FL to my Takahashi Sky-90 Fluorite doublet, stopped down to 40mm with an 8x eyepiece to make it optically an 8x40, then the FL image looks shockingly soft, dim and low contrast. A ridiculous comparison, I know, except that it demonstrates how much room for improvement there still is in binocular optics.

Henry

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 00:42

Ed,

Yes, I have an 8x42 FL. No, it doesn't use Fluorite. It uses one of the fluoro-crown glass types. Zeiss says something like "glass containing Fluoride ions". I can see from tests with the magnification boosted to 64x that longitudinal CA in the FL is about 1/4 the level I see in typical binocular achromats.

I saw your post about color gradation. I don't think I can report anything similar with the FL, but I'm a chronic malcontent when it comes to binocular optics. They're never as bright or sharp or vivid as I want them to be. I think the FL stands up well compared to other binoculars. The center of it's field has a "transparency" compared to others which makes almost everthing I've compared it to look slightly veiled and dull. But if I compare one barrel of the FL to my Takahashi Sky-90 Fluorite doublet, stopped down to 40mm with an 8x eyepiece to make it optically an 8x40, then the FL image looks shockingly soft, dim and low contrast. A ridiculous comparison, I know, except that it demonstrates how much room for improvement there still is in binocular optics.

Henry

Henry,

That "rediculous comparison" makes a great deal of sense. But, as you said, once you've seen better all else seems veiled and dull. In fact, I also get a strong sense of "transparency" with the 804ED that I've not seen in my other binoculars, but I didn't refer to that quality. It's like the glass ain't there.

As a brief change of topic, you may recall my pontification some weeks ago about the eye-ocular interface being the last frontier (which is not quite true now that we've hit on this). Well, I finally found an article that gets at that notion, which you might find of interest. The bibliography at the end isn't very long, so it would seem that not much work has been done in this area. I've ordered the B.H. Walker (2000) book from abebooks.com. What's your impression?

Ed
PS. If you ever set up that Takahashi 8x40 rig again, and it's possible, could you try to evaluate avian color tonality, — if you haven't already?

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 02:36

...
But if I compare one barrel of the FL to my Takahashi Sky-90 Fluorite doublet, stopped down to 40mm with an 8x eyepiece to make it optically an 8x40, then the FL image looks shockingly soft, dim and low contrast. A ridiculous comparison, I know, except that it demonstrates how much room for improvement there still is in binocular optics.
...

Henry,

I'm doing a double-take on this. And maybe this is what you were suggesting.

The 804ED is very similar to your stopped down, very expensive, Takahashi with 8x eyepiece. They both actually use ED glass in their objectives, the Fluorite being much more expensive, of course (and air- or oil-spaced?). (We'll leave aside Zeiss' fluoride ion glass, which may or may not be similar in its effects.)

In daylight the eye effectively stops down the 804ED's 44mm objective, in some ways comparable to the Takahashi. The manufacturer (Hiyoshi Kogaku) may have applied more stringent quality contol with this limited production, top-of-the-line, Audubon, as more hand fitting was probably required to mount the air-space objective elements, as well as the improved 5-element eyepiece.

So, it's plausible (to me) that since they share the same basic optical ingredients, the unique Takahashi rig and the 804ED may also produce similar perceptual effects. In essence, you may have simulated one side of the only low-power ED binocular ever produced.

Ed

henry link

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 13:39

Ed,

I'm going to have to play the skeptic in this. I'm sure the 804ED is an excellent binocular, but I'm as confident as I can be without seeing it that it still suffers from some of the inherent optical compromises found in other binoculars. An f/4 doublet objective, even with the best ED glass and the best air spaced design will still have lots of chromatic and spherical aberrations and the BAK 4 prisms will add more. F/4 is just too fast to make anything close to an aberration free doublet, even with hand figuring and aspherizing. Binocular designers depend on low magnification to keep the aberrations below the threshold of visibility or at least unobjectionable.

The Takahashi comparison demonstrated to me that the aberrations in even the best binoculars are really not below the threshold of visibility. I used the FL because in a star test it shows very low aberrations by binocular standards. The reason I called the comparison ridiculous is because the stopped down Takahashi "8x40" is a 7 pound, 2 foot long telescope, with an f/12.5 objective and no erecting prism. There is nothing there that could be used in a real binocular. I set up the test just to see how much visible damage the fast optics and erecting prism of a binocular do to the image quality, even at low magnification, when compared to an aberration free reference standard.

I have a friend who owns a non-ED 804 like yours. I'll see if I can borrow that and compare it to the Zeiss FL. BTW the FL does use "ED" glass. Zeiss just doesn't use that term. I would call the objective design a triplet; a cemented doublet air spaced with a singlet. Zeiss calls it a 4 element objective because they include the focusing element.

Henry

P.S.- I couldn't open the PDF attachment. I think I need to update my Acrobat Reader.

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 16:06

Henry,

I'm giving thought to this issue, but in the meantime you may be able to download the article directly.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/revmexfis/no504/RMF50413.pdf

More later,
Ed

trashbird

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 16:40

Henry,

I'm giving thought to this issue, but in the meantime you may be able to download the article directly.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/revmexfis/no504/RMF50413.pdf

More later,
Ed

The Zeiss FL, even though it sounds extremely well corrected (for a lowly binocular), is nevertheless a roof-prism design. The 804 (ED or not) is a porro-prism. Would that make some difference in the quality of image that Ed is seeing in his 804ED?

I love roof-prism binoculars for their streamlined handling. I have spent some time looking through some top-shelf roofs that have blown me away -- the Swaro 7x42 SLC and Leica 8x42. But I still have a memory of the view through the Swift 804 (non-ED) I used to own. It's central-field image was the best view I have ever seen through a binocular (both on birds and stars). Unfortunately, I had problems with eye-relief...blah-blah-blah.

So I am curious to see what Henry thinks of the 804. I owned the latest edition of the 804 that Swift made. I wonder which edition Henry has access to.

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 18:43

Henry,

Going back over your post, I'm afraid I completely misread your statement about the FL being more "transparent" in the center field than other binoculars, which seem "slightly veiled and dull" by comparison. I guess I would say that about the 804ED as well, and accordingly I really have to reach out for an FL comparison. Based on my misread, I fell into thinking that the 804ED really is as good as it gets. (Nice fantasy for only $365 on eBay. :)

With regard to the Takahashi rig, of course, I was deliberately exaggerating the degree of similarity between it and the 804ED. My underlying thought was simply motivated by your last statement "...except that it demonstrates how much room for improvement there still is in binocular optics." Looking at it from my psychologist's perspective, I was inclined to ask, Okay, so how much room is that? Unfortunately, I have no real sense of the improvement you can see. However, I couldn't help but muse about a question having to do with the ultimate in human perception. Might it not be that at some optical point, hopefully more practicable than twin Takahashi rigs, the observer will have reached the limits of what can be perceived? Otherwise put, do the optics have to be that good to get the ultimate perceptual result?

I'm afraid I don't follow why you'd be looking at the standard 804, but if you do be aware that only the latest model is fully multi-coated. Steve Ingraham never reported on that version as far as I know.

Ed

trashbird

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 19:50

With regard to the Takahashi rig, of course, I was deliberately exaggerating the degree of similarity between it and the 804ED. My underlying thought was simply motivated by your last statement "...except that it demonstrates how much room for improvement there still is in binocular optics." Looking at it from my psychologist's perspective, I was inclined to ask, Okay, so how much room is that? Unfortunately, I have no real sense of the improvement you can see. However, I couldn't help but muse about a question having to do with the ultimate in human perception. Might it not be that at some optical point, hopefully more practicable than twin Takahashi rigs, the observer will have reached the limits of what can be perceived? Otherwise put, do the optics have to be that good to get the ultimate perceptual result?

I'm afraid I don't follow why you'd be looking at the standard 804, but if you do be aware that only the latest model is fully multi-coated. Steve Ingraham never reported on that version as far as I know.

Ed

Ed, I hope you don't mind me butting in on this subject.

If you look at the history of optical design, there have not been any major developments since early in the 20th century -- at least as far as can be incorporated in a binocular. The last major development was phase coating, which really isn't an improvement -- just a way of compensating for a previously existing problem.

But flourite, ED glass, Apo design...all these developments are quite old. Apparently, they have just taken a long time to trickle down to use in binoculars.

But I don't think we (we as in our scientific and technological culture) have reached some threshold where it is no longer possible to improve on what we can see in binoculars. Binoculars really are a sort of forgotten stepchild of technology anyway. They are only used by amateurs and hobbyists of various ilks. Astronomers know that to dramatically improve their telescopic images, they need to put the telescope in space -- it's an incredibly simple, albeit horrendously expensive idea. There is not such a simple idea for the binocular-using birdwatcher or amateur astronomer.

I'm not really a scientist -- though I work in the field -- and I'm definitely not an engineer. But here are some ideas about how small optical instruments such as binoculars and spotting scopes could be improved.

One technology might involve bio-technology...using microscopic organsisms that respond to light and produce color. They are already being used, but very experimentally. Pehaps "glass" will not be the refracting element of the future. Perhaps optical "lenses" will be made of bio-organisms that live in some sort of matrix that refract light and reproduce color more finely than the best flourite optical element.

Perhaps nano-technology will provide the new optical frontier. Billions of molecule-sized photosensitive elements that react to and refract different tiny slices of the color spectrum. Kind of like how giant-telescope mirrors are made of hundreds of smaller mirrors.

At any rate, don't hold your breath for these technologies to be used in small personal optics. The scientists have bigger fish to fry before ground-breaking technologies will work their way down to you and me.

Pinewood

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 21:33

Binoculars really are a sort of forgotten stepchild of technology anyway. They are only used by amateurs and hobbyists of various ilks. \
I think that you can add foresters, mariners, soldiers, coast guardsmen and other rescue and assistance personnel who have a great need for binoculars. However their needs do differ those of bird watchers. For instance, the U.S. Army current standard issue binocular is noted for its size and robustness rather than for sharpness.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

trashbird

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 22:26

I think that you can add foresters, mariners, soldiers, coast guardsmen and other rescue and assistance personnel who have a great need for binoculars. However their needs do differ those of bird watchers. For instance, the U.S. Army current standard issue binocular is noted for its size and robustness rather than for sharpness.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Yes, I was forgetting about the binocular users you mentioned, and if anything, they deserve better optics than a hobbyist. On the other hand, night-vision technology is something very useful to many of the kinds of binocular users you mentioned above, but is of little use to your average birdwatcher.

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 22:56

Ed, I hope you don't mind me butting in on this subject.

If you look at the history of optical design, there have not been any major developments since early in the 20th century -- at least as far as can be incorporated in a binocular. The last major development was phase coating, which really isn't an improvement -- just a way of compensating for a previously existing problem.

But flourite, ED glass, Apo design...all these developments are quite old. Apparently, they have just taken a long time to trickle down to use in binoculars.

But I don't think we (we as in our scientific and technological culture) have reached some threshold where it is no longer possible to improve on what we can see in binoculars. Binoculars really are a sort of forgotten stepchild of technology anyway. They are only used by amateurs and hobbyists of various ilks. Astronomers know that to dramatically improve their telescopic images, they need to put the telescope in space -- it's an incredibly simple, albeit horrendously expensive idea. There is not such a simple idea for the binocular-using birdwatcher or amateur astronomer.

I'm not really a scientist -- though I work in the field -- and I'm definitely not an engineer. But here are some ideas about how small optical instruments such as binoculars and spotting scopes could be improved.

One technology might involve bio-technology...using microscopic organsisms that respond to light and produce color. They are already being used, but very experimentally. Pehaps "glass" will not be the refracting element of the future. Perhaps optical "lenses" will be made of bio-organisms that live in some sort of matrix that refract light and reproduce color more finely than the best flourite optical element.

Perhaps nano-technology will provide the new optical frontier. Billions of molecule-sized photosensitive elements that react to and refract different tiny slices of the color spectrum. Kind of like how giant-telescope mirrors are made of hundreds of smaller mirrors.

At any rate, don't hold your breath for these technologies to be used in small personal optics. The scientists have bigger fish to fry before ground-breaking technologies will work their way down to you and me.

Another futurist emerges from its cocoon. Hi there, nice fella :'D

If you interpreted me as suggesting there is or should be a limit to technology or innovation, — nay, nay. What I was suggesting is that the receiving organism sets a limit on the information throughput that's possible via its bio-sensory and processing apparatus, and this sets a corresponding restraint on the technology that's required to reach that limit. Beyond that it's overkill, guilding the lilly, ... and so forth. So, how far do binocularists have to go to get to that bio limit? As Henry already intimated, the Takahashi rig is an "existence proof." It says, "Here is one device, which may go beyond what's needed, but can improve the visual experience significantly." I also see a major step-function improvement in my air-spaced 804ED, so for now it's my personal existence proof that more lies ahead.

Extra, Extra, read all about it: Returning to the historical subject of this thread, Renze de Vries has just now obtained iron-clad proof that (some) later 804EDs were NOT airspaced. Wim de Boer, who is our expert opticalman in The Netherlands, took apart his own specimen and found — a cemented doublet. Yikes. This flies in the face of all that's holy, and a lot that isn't.

Renze may want to chime in here with his own thoughts, but to me although this development presents a brand new set of questions, it also potentially points to a few answers. The big question for me has been, Given the superb view from the 804ED, why did it fade from the scene without a whimper? The answer may simply be that the non-air-spaced version was not as good as the original.

AS ED

trashbird

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 23:10

Yeah, sorry for the threadjack, Mr. Air Spaced...Mr. Ed?

It seems like having a cemented doublet kind of defeats the purpose of adding ED glass. Cheaper to manufacture, though, I'm sure.

I am thinking of buying another 804 again at some point -- eye relief be damned. If I only get a 360 ft/1000 yd FOV with my glasses, that will still be the best 360 ft/1000 yd view that my money can buy. And at night, eye relief increases anyway -- so I might be able to get 400 ft/1000 yd for stargazing. I would only be missing out on the fuzziest outer part of the view, anyway.

elkcub

Tuesday 11th April 2006, 23:36

trashbird

Wednesday 12th April 2006, 02:10

Dr. Ed, actually, but there's a lot smarter one on CN. So, I'll stick with AS ED. Air-Spaced ED goes well with my personality and all. :'D

I'd suggest you wait around for a FMC HR/5 Type 4b(2) to show up on eBay, as it will. Is it possible for our futurist to buy contact lenses?

BTW, I guess we will have to re-write the article with Type 4c(1) and 4c(2), 1 being AS, and 2 being NAS. Our labors never end.

AS ED

What's up, Doc?

The FMC HR/5 Type 4b(2) was what I owned, and I would settle for nothing less.

I'll bore you with the story of how I bought them. I saw them in an Astromart classified ad and it turned out the owner lived in my city. So I contacted him, went over to his house and had a look at them. He was a very serious amateur astronomer with some high-end scopes, and though he liked the 804s, he was going to buy the 804ED, which he thought would give him a tad more "oomph" or something. This was maybe maybe 10 years ago, so both the 804 and 804ED were still in production. I can't remember what I paid, but it was considerably less than the new price, and the binoculars were in impeccable condition.

I used the 804s for about a month before I gave up on them for the eye-relief issue. One thing that struck me about them was basically what Steve Ingraham said about them. You can discern details of birds from vast distances, even better than with 10x binoculars. The resolution is that good. Steve Ingraham is also a glasses wearer and the 804s were his personal binocular for many years despite the shallow eye relief.

Contacts...hmmm. I haven't tried them in many years. I have heard they have gotten a lot more comfortable to wear. Also, I'm not sure whether they would fully correct my astigmatism. It's worth looking into, though

elkcub

Wednesday 12th April 2006, 21:17

With respect to the prior discussion, I'm increasingly curious why Stephen Ingraham's more recent writings (see quote below, or his full article on Color Fringing at http://www.birdforum.net/article.php?a=2 ) has not led to more extensive discussions about the subjective pleasures of color "vividness," and the "differentiation of finer shades," to use his words. Does anyone have a thought about that? In essence, this is really what my wild-eyed reaction to the 804ED is all about, —color perceptions.

At the risk of sounding critical, which is not intended, I think it is a truism that most of us evaluate binoculars by considering physically measurable properties, such as resolution, DOF, FOV, CA, etc., even though the measurement often requires a skilled human observer. No exception to this is what I refer to as "aided visual acuity," since even this is easily confused with optical resolution. Arguably, Ingraham's innovative NEED Score, using a US dollar bill as a target, also helped to solidify an externalization of what is really an important and relevant internal human performance measure. The point is that what we naturally tend to consider are properties of the external device, probably because that’s what we buy, and not the internal human reactions (e.g., performance improvements, perceptions, feelings, etc.) that it produces. I guess that's fair enough. After all, how many grease monkeys wax eloquent about the sculptural feel of a Snap-On wrench, or electricians the joy of a Klein tool? But, they do have these internal perceptions and will pay a lot more to get them.

Not that he needs more, but here we must pay homage to Mr. Ingraham, once again, as the quintessential binoculars writer. Did you ever wonder just what it is about his BVD reviews that set them apart? Well, here’s one of his tricks as I see it. He actually describes his own visual perceptions, which, more often than not, conform with what the population experiences. There’s no getting around it, folks, as we move into the rarified atmosphere of ED, Fluoride and Fluorite lens technology, more and more the distinctions which define a “Better View” will be perceptual and not easily measured. Unfortunately, it’s the “touchy-feely” stuff a poet is needed to describe.

So where does that leave us? Perceptual ratings of transparency, vividness, and color-shading, a