Historical Review of Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars

[elkcub]

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]

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.

[elkcub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Pileatus]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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

[Pinewood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ed,

Late model 4b 99****

Arthur Pinewood

[elkcub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Otto McDiesel]

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]

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]

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,
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

[elkcub]

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]

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

[trashbird]

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?

[elkcub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ed,

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

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[ceasar]

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Renze

[elkcub]

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]

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]

: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]

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

[Pileatus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[elkcub]

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]

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]

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

Yikes, what a coincidence! Yes, I was at Charleston slough just two days ago. The two dozen or so Black Skimmers were wonderful, as usual, and it would be a good location to make some comparisons now that they built the observation deck to work on. Being retired I can meet with you any day. What's your situation?

Maybe we should talk details by private email.

ED

[henry link]

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.

[elkcub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[trashbird]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[elkcub]

...
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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[trashbird]

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]

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, among others, can be added with thought to the lexicon of binocular reviews. Informed opinions in this domain are no less valid or trustworthy than any other so-called “objective” opinion, and, of course, they are also subject to the maxim that consensus rules the day. Once manufacturers come to realize that such factors are being looked at by a discerning audience, there would no doubt be greater effort to develop and market a “better view.” Not to worry, based on an economy of scale and competition, today’s high prices would moderate.


... The extra vividness increases your pleasure in the image, makes possible the differentiation of finer shades of colors (especially, for some reason, the blues), and, we are discovering, even at the lower powers common in binoculars, increases color perception in low light situations, enhancing the twilight performance of the optics.
... S. Ingraham, 2004

[trashbird]

Steve Ingraham was such a good reviewer because he came from humble beginnings. He didn't start out with the top-of-the-line Euro-optics. He carried an inexpensive Nikon compact around his neck for a long time. Then he graduated to the Swift Audubon 804s.

He was a school teacher with a pretty big family. He couldn't afford most of the binoculars he reviewed. He was given them to review because he was such a perceptive and eloquent writer. Take away the NEEDS test. His reviews are still the best.

In addition to his knowledge and perception of the optical experience, he is a very active birdwatcher. I honestly think that there are optics nuts on this forum who really don't do that much birdwatching. Or birdwatching is just a test of the optics, rather than the reason for the optics. I'm afraid I am guilty of that sometimes myself.

More than anyone Ingraham understood how difficult it used to be for the average middle-class birdwatcher to get a decent set of binoculars and not have to go into debt to do so. And I imagine that his reviews and observations of the optics market have contributed more than anyone else to the outstanding quality of mid-priced optics these days.

Steve Ingraham was such a good reviewer that Zeiss basically bought him off so that he would stop reviewing optics and start selling them. And I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds. Ingraham has earned his position as a Zeiss representative and I bet he is still as honest and critical of what he sells as he was about what he reviewed.

[elkcub]

trashbird,

Very nicely put, and I concur completely. I didn't agree with a few of his conclusions over the years, and was puzzled by some, but his knack at describing perceptions was quite unique. I think this was actually aided by him not having a behavioral science background, so he could weave the concepts into lay terms.

Now, at this point, I wouldn't mind if he extolled the virtues of Zeiss products exclusively. There would be no need to deride other companies or to engage in cross-product comparisons. In fact, given that he's so good at it, I really don't understand why Zeiss hasn't encouraged him to do this already. Who cares if he hawks Zeiss products if he believes in them? We all know the deal. My ulterior motive, of course, would be to bootstrap his considerable skills to codify the benefits of Fluorite technology, or, more generically ED technology, for aided color acuity. He could even do so within the framework of Zeiss products.

Of course, it's easier said than done ...

ED

[trashbird]

I noticed something in Ingraham's otherwise fine article on color fringing:

"Recently a third alternative has become available to optical designers. FL glass, a special optical glass which is enhanced with fluorine ions, has the advantages of both ED and Fluorite, but without the drawbacks of either. The introduction of FL glass allows the design of systems that are light weight, durable, and which offer superior color correction."

We know from the refractive optics article that the FL glass that Ingraham refers to is fluor-crown glass -- not a recent development at all. In fact, I'm not sure what Ingraham means when he refers to older ED glass being made from rare earths. Unless Zeiss has really come up with a truly revolutionary glass-making method, it would seem that their FL glass is basically what others are simply calling ED glass. This is what Henry Link has stated.

I doubt if Ingraham is being deceptive here. I would hope he is merely spouting the ad copy of the Zeiss marketing department.

[trashbird]

Here is a cool link to an optical glossary:

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/optics/optical_definitions.htm

It mayprove useful in some of the discussions here. (Speaking of, should this stuff be moved off the Swift history thread?)

I like these definitions:

"ED: short for "extra low dispersion," a reference to glass types that do not disperse light into its component colors so easily as regular glasses. ED glasses therefore exhibit less chromatic aberration by themselves than a typical crown or flint. Not magical."

"Fluorite: a type of "ED" crown glass, discovered by Ernst Abbe, which has low refractive index and low dispersion, as well as an abnormal partial dispersion. Chemically CaF2. Historically, natural fluorspar crystals were used, and applications were limited to microscopes. Development of artificial crystals was necessary to produce elements large enough for use in telescope objectives. Fluorite is about 1/4 as hard as typical glass, and it is consequently delicate and very sensitive to temperature changes. It is considered rather difficult to polish. Fluorite will be degraded by long term contact with water, acids, and other atmospheric contaminants, but in telescope objectives the coatings should protect the surface. Like lanthanum, fluorite has had a good deal of attention by marketing hypesters, and like lanthanum, it is not a magical substance, but provides optical designers with important latitude in improving optical systems. Not magical."

Not magical....waaaahhhhhh!!! *tears*

[elkcub]

Here is a cool link to an optical glossary:

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/optics/optical_definitions.htm

It mayprove useful in some of the discussions here. (Speaking of, should this stuff be moved off the Swift history thread?)

I like these definitions:

"ED: short for "extra low dispersion," a reference to glass types that do not disperse light into its component colors so easily as regular glasses. ED glasses therefore exhibit less chromatic aberration by themselves than a typical crown or flint. Not magical."

"Fluorite: a type of "ED" crown glass, discovered by Ernst Abbe, which has low refractive index and low dispersion, as well as an abnormal partial dispersion. Chemically CaF2. Historically, natural fluorspar crystals were used, and applications were limited to microscopes. Development of artificial crystals was necessary to produce elements large enough for use in telescope objectives. Fluorite is about 1/4 as hard as typical glass, and it is consequently delicate and very sensitive to temperature changes. It is considered rather difficult to polish. Fluorite will be degraded by long term contact with water, acids, and other atmospheric contaminants, but in telescope objectives the coatings should protect the surface. Like lanthanum, fluorite has had a good deal of attention by marketing hypesters, and like lanthanum, it is not a magical substance, but provides optical designers with important latitude in improving optical systems. Not magical."

Not magical....waaaahhhhhh!!! *tears*

Hi trashbird,

Having started this thread, I took the liberty of veering slightly off track with my rainy day musings (which I can do again today). It's the 43rd day, and truly biblical in scope; Noah only had to stick it out for 40, and he had lots of company. However, I think our discussion is relevant to appreciating the whole Audubon series, not only the 804ED.

"Not Magical" is absoluely a scream! In addition to the other definitions you mentioned, about ED and Fluorite glass, the one on Coatings, antireflection, (incl. multi-coating) is quite good, and clearly conforms with "not magical." More and more I suspect that my "Chinaman's Hat" percept is a result of field curvature. It could also include, or even be, spherical aberration. However, it always flattens out at the edges, which I don't quite comprehend. I'm just looking for an explanation of the phenomenon.

My musing today continues about externalizing our love of the non-magical things inside binoculars, while paying scant attention to the the perceptual magic that occurs inside ourselves. If it looks better viewing through one set of peeper enhancers than another, then they are the better ones no matter what. Well, that's what I'm thinking anyway. BVD means better view desired, after all, and that may not equate completely to lack of aberrations or optical flaws.

How's the weather in Arizona?
Ed

[trashbird]

Hi trashbird,

Having started this thread, I took the liberty of veering slightly off track with my rainy day musings (which I can do again today). It's the 43rd day, and truly biblical in scope; Noah only had to stick it out for 40, and he had lots of company. However, I think our discussion is relevant to appreciating the whole Audubon series, not only the 804ED.

"Not Magical" is absoluely a scream! In addition to the other definitions you mentioned, about ED and Fluorite glass, the one on Coatings, antireflection, (incl. multi-coating) is quite good, and clearly conforms with "not magical." More and more I suspect that my "Chinaman's Hat" percept is a result of field curvature. It could also include, or even be, spherical aberration. However, it always flattens out at the edges, which I don't quite comprehend. I'm just looking for an explanation of the phenomenon.

My musing today continues about externalizing our love of the non-magical things inside binoculars, while paying scant attention to the the perceptual magic that occurs inside ourselves. If it looks better viewing through one set of peeper enhancers than another, then they are the better ones no matter what. Well, that's what I'm thinking anyway. BVD means better view desired, after all, and that may not equate completely to lack of aberrations or optical flaws.

How's the weather in Arizona?
Ed

Well, though drier than your locale, the weather here isn't magical, either. Gusty, dusty, warm, and thinly overcast. Cooler weather has set in now, though, and I am hoping for a clear, calm day tomorrow. I would like to survey the heavens and the earth.

[elkcub]

Dear Swift 804ED Users,

As announced on post #91, (some) later 804EDs used a cemented doublet in the objective. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide information for an update of the article:

1. What is the serial number of your 804ED? The first two digits are the year of manufacture.

2. What are the markings on the two cover plates? It probably would say HR/5 and "Fully Multi-Coated."

3. Was it originally purchased in Europe or the US? Better yet, do you have any documentation saying Swift-Pyser (Europe) or Swift Instruments (USA)?

4. Do you see three or four reflections in the objective from a light source over your shoulder? This is not hard to do. Three reflection would be produced by a cemented doublet. Four reflections would be produced by two air-spaced lenses.

Your response would be greatly appreciated, either by posting on this thread or sending me a personal message. Even one or two responses would be very helpful.

Many thanks in advance,

Ed
PS. If you know anyone with an 804ED please try to obtain this information.

[elkcub]

UPDATE

This thread has been inactive for some time, but several people have read our article and made purchase decisions based on its contents. This post will attempt to clarify a few ambiguous matters:

1. The issue concerning cemented doublets in some 804EDs has been explained by an equally qualified Swift technician in the US. According to him, some repair technicians lost or damaged the thin .6mm air-spacing shim and simply cemented the two lens elements. This, of course, would degrade the image.

2. The same expert has assured us that the current 820ED does use air-spaced objectives as well as ED glass, although so far no one has verified that the view is noticeably different than the standard model. Testimonials are encouraged.

3. A previous side-by-side comparison of my Type 4a 804R (ca. 1987) and a Type 4b(1) HR/5 found no difference in coatings or view. They were both marked "Fully-Coated Optics." A more recent comparison of the same two types revealed that there is a coating difference, evidenced by a uniform light green reflection of the newer model (ca. 1995) vs. the 804R, which is pale purple or green depending on orientation. I am now convinced that the 804R, and perhaps the original Type 4b(1) HR/5, only had partial multi-coatings.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to compare the coatings of the more recent Type 4b(1) with my 804ED (ca. 1997) or a Type 4b(2), both of which are marked "Fully Multi-Coated." So, rather than speculate on the number of coating variations used for Type 4a,b,c Audubons, I would simply suggest that the buyer look for light green coatings.

The 10x50 Kestrel (ca. 1998) I own is fairly dark green, but not as dark as the current issue Model 820s. Renze just acquired a somewhat older 10x50 that is actually marked "Audubon," and he may wish to comment on the color of his pair.

4. Some time back someone mentioned that Swift 804s were getting rare on eBay. I poo-poo'd that, but at this point I'd have to agree. Nothing much has showed up in the US for months. I've haven't seen an ED version since I bought mine. :(

5. I purchased a pair of Fully Coated Swift Model 766 7x35 Holiday Mark II (ca. 1978) on eBay to evaluate its 80.15 deg., super-wide 600 ft. FOV. Unfortunately, they were quite dirty inside and in need of collimation, which made the economics a bit iffy. The super-wide FOV is interesting, although frankly I don't know what to make of it. The 1968 catalog said: "The Holiday delivers an incredibly wide field, equal to that of the human eye, without distortion..." This will take some time to understand. In 1971 they sold the same model with a 630 ft. field of view.

Although the 1974 catalog refers to the "... fabulous Mark II features" of Model 766, it turns out that it does not have BaK-4 prisms. Four-sided edge dimming of the exit pupil clearly shows the use of lower cost crown glass. So, unless someone replaced the prisms over the years with different glass, the Mark II quality illusion is shattered. Is nothing sacred? Curiously, this model sold for exactly the same price as the Type 1 and 2 Audubons in their day, but unlike the latter it displays serious prism reflections that are very distracting.

6. Ending on a better note, tethered rubber objective covers for the Type 4 804 and 820 Audubons are made by Eagle Optics and sold by them as well as B&H. They are very similar to Swaro covers and work great!

Regards to all,
ED

[elkcub]

New BF posting procedures no longer allow easy changes to be made to earlier posts. Hence, I will make corrections by underlining or capitalization or brackets.
e.h.

UPDATE

This thread has been inactive for some time, but several people have read our article and made purchase decisions based on its contents. This post will attempt to clarify a few ambiguous matters:

1. The issue concerning cemented doublets in some 804EDs has been explained by an equally qualified Swift technician in the US. According to him, some repair technicians lost or damaged the thin .6mm air-spacing shim and simply cemented the two lens elements. This, of course, would degrade the image, since the optical design was based on air-spacing.

2. The same expert has assured us that the current 820ED does NOT use air-spaced objectives ..., although so far no one has verified that the view is noticeably different than the standard model. Testimonials are encouraged.

3. A previous side-by-side comparison of my Type 4a 804R (ca. 1987) and a Type 4b(1) HR/5 found no difference in coatings or view. They were both marked "Fully-Coated Optics." A more recent comparison of the same two types revealed that there is a coating difference, evidenced by a uniform light green reflection of the newer model (ca. 1995) vs. the 804R, which is pale purple or green depending on orientation. I am now convinced that the 804R, and perhaps the original Type 4b(1) HR/5, only had partial multi-coatings.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to compare the coatings of the more recent Type 4b(1) with my 804ED (ca. 1997) or a Type 4b(2), both of which are marked "Fully Multi-Coated." So, rather than speculate on the number of coating variations used for Type 4a,b,c Audubons, I would simply suggest that the buyer look for light green coatings.

There is some evidence that an early Type 4b(1) was sold in Europe by Swift-Pyser, which had the same MC optics as the 804R. It is also possible that cover plates on some 804Rs were changed during repair, which would make it appear that way. Unfortunately, hybridization can never be discounded.

The 10x50 Kestrel (ca. 1998) I own is fairly dark green, but not as dark as the current issue Model 820s. Renze just acquired a somewhat older 10x50 that is actually marked "Audubon," and he may wish to comment on the color of his pair.

4. Some time back someone mentioned that Swift 804s were getting rare on eBay. I poo-poo'd that, but at this point I'd have to agree. Nothing much has showed up in the US for months. I've haven't seen an ED version since I bought mine. :(

As of this date we did purchase a 1994 804ED for Renze on eBay which was overhauled by Nicolas Crista, the chief opticalman for Swift when they were located in Boston. He did a beautiful job, — including installing new cover plates. See what I mean?

5. I purchased a pair of Fully Coated Swift Model 766 7x35 Holiday Mark II (ca. 1978) on eBay to evaluate its 80.15 deg., super-wide 600 ft. FOV. Unfortunately, they were quite dirty inside and in need of collimation, which made the economics a bit iffy. The super-wide FOV is interesting, although frankly I don't know what to make of it. The 1968 catalog said: "The Holiday delivers an incredibly wide field, equal to that of the human eye, without distortion..." This will take some time to understand. In 1971 they sold the same model with a 630 ft. field of view.

Although the 1974 catalog refers to the "... fabulous Mark II features" of Model 766, it turns out that it does not have BaK-4 prisms. Four-sided edge dimming of the exit pupil clearly shows the use of lower cost crown glass. So, unless someone replaced the prisms over the years with different glass, the Mark II quality illusion is shattered. Is nothing sacred? Curiously, this model sold for exactly the same price as the Type 1 and 2 Audubons in their day, but unlike the latter it displays serious prism reflections that are very distracting.

6. Ending on a better note, tethered rubber objective covers for the Type 4 804 and 820 Audubons are made by Eagle Optics and sold by them as well as B&H. They are very similar to Swaro covers and work great!

Regards to all,
ED

[ted nordhagen]

"2. The same expert has assured us that the current 820ED does NOT use air-spaced objectives ..., although so far no one has verified that the view is noticeably different than the standard model. Testimonials are encouraged."


Ed,

Upon reading the above, I pulled out my Swift Sport Optics catalogue (Fall 2006) where it says the following;

*Added to the patented features and world-renowned optical formula of the original 820 Swift Audubon is an ED (Extra low Dispersion) lens in an air spaced objective system.....

Is the Swift expert in error, or is the catalogue? Is it possible changes where made at some point to include the air spacing in the newest samples?

Ted

[elkcub]

Ted,

Well, that's no doubt the origin of the rumor. Here is the email I received from Mr. Nicolas Crista who was in charge of optical repairs for Swift Optics, Boston. In addition to consulting with Hiyoshi on improvements to the 820, he also holds the US patent for Swift's locking eyecup —found on the most recent 828 HHS Audubon and probably the 820 as well. In addition to his statement, Wim de Boer, our European expert at Technolyt, The Netherlands, tells us the same thing, which is also based on personal observation.

So, unfortunately, the 2006 catalog is incorrect,, as are several ads I've seen on the Internet. But thank you for bringing the error to everyone's attention, since we can definitively stamp out this growing urban legend.

Ed

Hello Edward,

The objective lenses*on # 820 ED : is*not*air-spased
The objective lenses on #*804 ED : is air-spased.

This is based on my repair*experience and not based on the manufacturers - Technical Data.-
...
In 2004 I met with Hiyoshi*Optical technical representative*in San Jose, to discuss further improvements for the # 820 # 820ED.
At the present time, I don't know if Hiyoshi Optical Co. is in business or not.

I hope this information is useful to your research.

Regards,
Nicolas


PS. I think it quite unlikely that an air-spaced model would have been introduced without a great deal of fanfare. Basically, it would involve costly manufacturing changes as well as significant differences in the aberration properties of the two models.

Ed

[ted nordhagen]

Ed,

Thanks for clarifying this for me. While we're on the subject, does anybody have a pulse on just where these 820ED's stand (optically) in comparison to it's predecessors?

Ted

Ted,

Well, that's no doubt the origin of the rumor. Here is the email I received from Mr. Nicolas Crista who was in charge of optical repairs for Swift Optics, Boston. In addition to consulting with Hiyoshi on improvements to the 820, he also holds the US patent for Swift's locking eyecup —found on the most recent 828 HHS Audubon and probably the 820 as well. In addition to his statement, Wim de Boer, our European expert at Technolyt, The Netherlands, tells us the same thing, which is also based on personal observation.

So, unfortunately, the 2006 catalog is incorrect,, as are several ads I've seen on the Internet. But thank you for bringing the error to everyone's attention, since we can definitively stamp out this growing urban legend.

Ed



PS. I think it quite unlikely that an air-spaced model would have been introduced without a great deal of fanfare. Basically, it would involve costly manufacturing changes as well as significant differences in the aberration properties of the two models.

Ed

[elkcub]

Ted,

When I last talked with Nicolas he expressed the opinions that (a) the ED versions were only subtly different than the standard versions, and (2) that the 820 is somewhat brighter than the 804 due to improved coatings. He also confirmed that the 820 is made by Hiyoshi Optical, so the quality should be on a par with earlier models. Due to the greater use of plastic, however, he felt that the mechanical design 'balance' (i.e., synergy) was not as good.

I don't know about the 820's coatings, or how the ED version differs from the standard. But, I would say that once perceived the 804ED has remarkable qualities that I haven't found in other binoculars. One of these qualities is general sense of brightness. I'm not sure why. I would also expect the two ED versions to be different, simply due to the lack of air spacing in the 820's objective design. This could effect several aberrations simultaneously.

Ed

[elkcub]

For those who spend spare moments pondering the whys and wherefores of the 804, we currently have an example of a very early Type 4b(1) on eBay (see #300053943218). This obviously well-used binocular marked Multi-Coated Optics (MC), was made in 1986, and shows a gold dot reticule as well as HR/5. It is, however, not marked "Model 804" and, judging by the photo, has the same coatings as the 804R shown on pg. 1 of our article. Renze has concluded, and I agree, that these variants with no model no. printed on them were sold in Europe during the marketing period of the 804R in the US. Their cover plate markings apparently anticipated the gold dot and HR/5 emblems that were used in the US starting about 1990, and which may have received a coating improvement at that time. (See pg. 16 or our article.)

The above is consistent with remarks in post #103, and accounts for my initial impression that Type 4b(1) used the same coatings as the 804R, Type 4a, if it was an early model. If that were true, the question would now be how best to distinguish between European and American markings without redefining everything done so far. My inclination is to refer to the European models with an 'E', in this instance Type 4b(1)E, — but Renze and I have to work it out.

Ed

[imac]

For what it is worth all the swift HR5s I have seen have a gold dot on the RH side and none marked 804r and I have seen a few owning 3 different pairs all made in the 80's so this is fairly unremarkable tho it does come as a suprise that the same model is marked differently in the US.

[elkcub]

For what it is worth all the swift HR5s I have seen have a gold dot on the RH side and none marked 804r and I have seen a few owning 3 different pairs all made in the 80's so this is fairly unremarkable tho it does come as a suprise that the same model is marked differently in the US.

Yup, it's become painfully evident that the "HR/5" and "gold dot" emblems were used in Europe half a decade before they were in the US. It would also seem that European Audubon models did not have "model 804" marked on their cover plates as in the US. However, I believe (but can't prove) that the early European HR/5 models, like you had, had the same Multi-Coated Optics as the American 804Rs of that period. I do know (because I own them) that the standard HR/5 Audubon sold later in the US during the mid-1990's had improved coatings that appear to be identical to the HR/5 804ED. However, on mine the former is marked MC optics and the latter FMC. The standard HR/5 sold in the US at the end of the 1990's, was marked FMC, and might or might not be different from mine. Whether the same confusion occurred in Europe during the 90's is beyond me. It's tough being a historian. :( But, thanks for your input. We're trying to figure out how to include all this in a revision of our paper. Say a prayer.

Ed

[harvey.broussard]

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

Ed,
Mine is a 4b(1) (with the HR/5 marking) s/n: 914066.

Underneath, this one is stamped J-B56. In reading your article, I don't think I found this designation mentioned, only JL-B56... might have been a mis-print/typo. Can you clarify?

I couldn't remember how long I've had them... my wife got them for my birthday a good long time ago. (Note: She ordered them from the Woodthrush Shop on a recommendation from our friend, premier birder, naturalist, and birding columnist from Lafayette, LA, Bill Fontenot.) If your theory about the s/n is right, I've had them about 16 years I guess... it's nice to know things like that when you can't count on your memory any more.

-harvey |;|

... 1 hour later... never mind, Ed... I started reviewing the entire thread and found your answer to my J-B56 query on post #35... thanks for you and Renze's great research work and for sharing it!
-harvey

[elkcub]

Ed,
Mine is a 4b(1) (with the HR/5 marking) s/n: 914066.

Underneath, this one is stamped J-B56. In reading your article, I don't think I found this designation mentioned, only JL-B56... might have been a mis-print/typo. Can you clarify?

I couldn't remember how long I've had them... my wife got them for my birthday a good long time ago. (Note: She ordered them from the Woodthrush Shop on a recommendation from our friend, premier birder, naturalist, and birding columnist from Lafayette, LA, Bill Fontenot.) If your theory about the s/n is right, I've had them about 16 years I guess... it's nice to know things like that when you can't count on your memory any more.

-harvey |;|

... 1 hour later... never mind, Ed... I started reviewing the entire thread and found your answer to my J-B56 query on post #35... thanks for you and Renze's great research work and for sharing it!
-harvey

Harvey,

No problem, and thanks for the posts. New information comes in at a uneven pace, but I believe Renze and I will be publishing some very interesting information about Audubons in the near future.

Blue skies,
Ed

[Howard220]

FWIW, I have the Mark II 804R, serial number that starts with 86 (I know I bought them new sometime in the early to mid-80's), and the J-B56 inscription inside the left bottom hinge, seen with the binocs held upside down. The focusing is silky smooth, but star images are not good. I can't get a good focus even in the center of the field. (But they're still great for sweeping the skies.) For all terrestrial purposes I really like them, even though they weigh 32 oz. and the outer field isn't all that sharp. They are just so easy to use, and there's no futzing around in an attempt to align them in front of the eyes - just pick them up and look.

[elkcub]

FWIW, I have the Mark II 804R, serial number that starts with 86 (I know I bought them new sometime in the early to mid-80's), and the J-B56 inscription inside the left bottom hinge, seen with the binocs held upside down. The focusing is silky smooth, but star images are not good. I can't get a good focus even in the center of the field. (But they're still great for sweeping the skies.) For all terrestrial purposes I really like them, even though they weigh 32 oz. and the outer field isn't all that sharp. They are just so easy to use, and there's no futzing around in an attempt to align them in front of the eyes - just pick them up and look.

You should get good images in the center of the field. I just had my 804R s/n 861600 cleaned and re-collimated by Nicolas Crista. Here is his summary of what was needed:

Factory cement, that holds the prisms in place,has cracked.
White, grayish powder is visible inside the optics.
This instrument needs to be taken apart, clean all optics, set and cement prisms, lube,collimate. $ 68.00 + $ 15.00 for S/H .


Many folks would not spend that much on a repair, I know, but they are excellent now, and time does have an adverse effect on just about everything.

Let me know if you want Nicolas' address. Yours might not need that much work.

Blue skies,
Ed

[Howard220]

Ed, thank you. Is his address and phone correct at this website?: http://www.nrcoptics.com/


Spending that amount of money on these is worth it to me. Besides, maybe he can spare an eyepiece cap. I lost one long ago. :(

Howard

[elkcub]

Ed, thank you. Is his address and phone correct at this website?: http://www.nrcoptics.com/


Spending that amount of money on these is worth it to me. Besides, maybe he can spare an eyepiece cap. I lost one long ago. :(

Howard

Howard,

Yes, it is. I didn't know he had a web site, although he did mention that he's doing more than just repairing Swift optics nowadays.

I bought several rainguards from Nicolas for Type 4 Audubons, altho the most recent one is not marked Swift. Incidentally, Eagle Optics sells tethered rubber objective covers that work perfectly with the 804R. If you place an order make sure to mention that it must fit a 56mm outer diameter. For some reason EO doesn't put size marks on these accessories.

I'd be interested to know how it works out. I was using mine last night in twilight. Outstanding!

Blue skies,
Ed

[Howard220]

I'll be sure to post the results. I'll call Nicolas tomorrow morning. I live close to the left coast, so shipping transit time will be a factor in the time it takes for the whole transaction. Thanks for the references for the Eagle tethered objective caps and the rainguard(s) Nicolas sells. But because of the binocular weight, I'll most likely only use them at home, not out in the field. Then again, maybe I'll have a field where my next home will be. ;)

[Howard220]

After further review (as the "head zebra" would say), I decided not to send in my 804R's for repair. I don't think they need it. This afternoon I compared their view with my "benchmark" Nikon 9x25 Travelite V's, and they're just as good, at least on axis. (Translation: I'm very pleased with the view.) Last night I tested the 804R's on the stars and no, stars cannot be brought to focus to a "point." It would appear that what I see is an indication of astigmatism. But I bet no repair is going to fix that. I even held them up to a bright spotlight and found no apparent indication of dirt/dust inside, so they don't appear to need an internal cleaning.... I just need to clean the outside.

[elkcub]

Howard,

If you don't feel your specimen needs cleaning or repair, that's a good thing. I wasn't really suggesting it needs service, altho my 804R did. As for not getting a good star field focus even in the center, however, that must be disappointing. I'd like to believe it could be corrected, but it's beyond my expertise and would take someone with the right background. I rely on Mr. Crista. What more can I say? ;)

Blue skies,
Ed

[Howard220]

Ed, rather than spend the money on getting Nicolas to evaluate them, here's my idea for a diagnosis. Understand that I know just enough to be dangerous! Based on the star images, I suspect the optics have some astigmatism (or maybe spherical aberration). But during the day the images are quite sharp and enjoyable to look at. Why? During the day my pupils are closed down such that the effects of the defects are minimal to none, as my smaller pupils are seeing only the central part of the optics' 5.17 mm exit pupil. But at night, when my pupils dilate to at least the size of the exit pupil, I am seeing all of what the optics deliver, including their defects. The defect doesn't really bother me; I just wish the, uh, stellar performance was better. Thanks for your encouragment.

Howard

[elkcub]

Howard, what I know about astro applications could be placed in a small thimble and leave room for my finger. My impression is that a good 804 specimen has a fair amount of SA, which might limit it's off-axis imaging. However, I was thinking of your initial statement "... but star images are not good. I can't get a good focus even in the center of the field." That one got me thinking that an inspection/repair would be in order.

It would be interesting to hear what other 804 users say about star gazing. No point building up unrealistic expectations. I know Arthur Pinewood has a pair.

Blue skies,
Ed

[Howard220]

Ed, my cheap Nikon Sportstar 8x25 roofs "throw up" better stellar images than these 804R's but the Sportstar daytime images just aren't very clear.

Whatever that means, I have no idea... ;-) Actually, what I was getting at earlier is that I believe the SA/astigmatism/whatever issue is optically related and is therefore not something that can be repaired or adjusted.

[elkcub]

Howard,

I'd suggest that you read through these CN threads and look for others. Basically, the 804 Audubon is highly respected for astro applications, and it has a great tripod mounting point built in.

If it were mine I'd at least get Nicolas' opinion. Any number of things could have happened to it in 20 yrs. Round trip mailing cost is only about 20 bucks.

Clear skies,
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
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=article&Number=1547970&Forum=f56&Words=swift%20804&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1485656&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=200&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post1547970

[dhowes]

I have a model 804 HR/5 4b(2) FMC purchased in 2000 with serial number 20.....

[James Bean]

Audubon serial numbers, Swift models & prices:

re:Post #125... Shouldn't that be '00....' rather than '20....' for the year 2000 (dhowes)?

For reference purposes, I have a May 1995 "Amateur Photographer" supplement 'Buying Binoculars' which lists all binoculars then available on the UK market...all 683 of them!
As far as I know, this was the biggest listing of binoculars ever (at least, in the UK). I refer to it often (sad case that I am). Perhaps it would be interesting/informative to list the Swift entries, for the purpose of comparison of values, if anyone is thinking of buying used binoculars 10 - 15 years old? Here they are, giving model, minimum focus, fov, weight, and price (at that time,UK)...
Green Trilyte (roof), 7x42, 4m, 114m, 530g, £189.
Green Trilyte (roof), 8x42, 5m, 114m, 530g, £194.
Green Trilyte (roof), 10x42, 8m, 105m, 625g, £199.
Osprey Blue Spot, 7.5x42, 4m, 122m, 836g, £199.
Saratoga Blue Spot, 8x42, 4m, 140m, 780g, £229.
Ultralite Blue Spot, 7x42, 4m, 122m, 615g, £234.
Ultralite Blue Spot, 8x42, 4m, 115m, 615g, £239.
Newport Blue Spot, 10x42, 5m, 122m, 780g, £239.
Ultralite Blue Spot, 10x42, 4m, 115m, 615g, £244.
Gold Audubon, 8.5x44, 4m, 143m, 820g, £289.
Gold Sea Hawk (if), 7x50, 8m, 131m, 1,134g, £289.
Gold Audubon, 10x50, 5m, 122m, 922g, £309. (Later became Kestrel).
Gold Audubon (roof), 7x35, 4m, 143m, 595g, £329.
Observation, 20x80, 22m, 58m, 2,450g, £425.
Zeiss Jena Octarem, 8x50BGA, 5.1m, 122m, 1,250g, £479 (aka Docter Nobilem).*
*I include this as my favourite binocular ever (it's that good) and to show how similar its minimum focus and fov are to the Audubon 10x50 (Kestrel), but it's 328g heavier!
I hope the above details may prove of some use to those buying old(er) binoculars...

[Renze de Vries]

James,

Great information!
As you seem to have made only a selection of Swifts sold in the UK, would you be so kind to give me ALL available blue spots please?
(I'm getting very, very greedy, excuse me).

Oh yes, the listing of blue spot Osprey is curious as I have never seen a spot/dot logo on this armoured model.

Renze

[James Bean]

Hi Renze, I've carefully checked the list again and it appears I have shown all the Blue Spots on AP's list (indeed, all Swifts) so can only conclude these were the ones then available in 1995, "E & O E". However, there are adverts in the back of the supplement which mention a "Swift Triton 10x50 srp £95" (old stock?) and a "Swift 8.5x44 Audubon ED, £475" (new model?). So it seems, 'officially', the Green Trilyte 7x42 at £189 was the least expensive Swift at that time, and the Observation 20x80 was the most expensive at £425, yet the advert for the Audubon ED shows that to be the 'top dog' at £475...
It's also notable that the ED was priced only £4 cheaper than the £479 Zeiss Octarem (Docter Nobilem). The Supplement publication date was 27th May 1995. Hope this helps.
Jim.

[James Bean]

Hello again, Renze, I've now checked on the reference to the 'Blue Spot' Osprey 7.5x42 and confirm this is how it's listed. I have the Osprey and agree there's no Blue Spot to be found anywhere on it (mine is 1989). The listing name may be a mistake, or the 'Blue Spot' appellation may be included to show this was a 'mid-priced' model, rather than the premium 'Gold' range. Mine says 'Haze-cut Coating' (on left) and 'High Resolution' (right). All this is starting to sound 'anorakish', but I suppose it 'fleshes out' some vagaries of Swift nomenclature for users/ prospective buyers/collectors? Anyway, it's fun! Jim.

[johntate]

Hi,
I recently purchased a pair of swift Albany 9x40 445@1000 . Serial No 805900 JB56.
A good glass I think, Any advice gladly heeded
Regards
John

[Renze de Vries]

Hi John,

This is a rare model, probably issued in the UK only (there's no model number on it, correct?). Some Albany's were designated MK II, all of them had the blue ribbon used in Europe to indicate a quality class just below the gold ribboned Audubons.
Other blue ribbons were the 8x40 Saratoga MK II and the 10x50 Newport MK II, which were redesigned in 1985 and became the Swift SPWA 8x42 and SPWA 10x42. There was also a SPWA 9x42 issued, which contrary to the other two never got a model name, but righteously should have been named Albany I think.
I once bought an Albany off eBay but its condition was so bad I was completely unable to have a decent look through it. However, its successor, the SPWA 9x42 is a truly great glass.

Renze

[elkcub]

A new window into the origins of the 804 Audubon has been opened with the recent acquisition of Swift-Anderson Catalog 59 (i.e., 1959), and, by pure coincidence, an Audubon model shown in the catalog that pre-dates the Type 1 body construction. At this point it's not clear who the Japanese manufacturer was, but it is truly a magnificent instrument with coated optics and 420 ft. field. We will be calling it Type 0 in the revised article.

Cheers, B (:
Ed

[Boomer]

A new window into the origins of the 804 Audubon has been opened with the recent acquisition of Swift-Anderson Catalog 59 (i.e., 1959), and, by pure coincidence, an Audubon model shown in the catalog that pre-dates the Type 1 body construction. At this point it's not clear who the Japanese manufacturer was, but it is truly a magnificent instrument with coated optics and 420 ft. field. We will be calling it Type 0 in the revised article.

Cheers, B (:
Ed

Ed, thanks for the update. I wish that all bin manufacturers were fortunate enough to have people willing to research their bin history, and make that info available to all. Thanks again. :t:

Best Wishes,
Ron Davidson

[bosun]

I wonder whether that that is part of the series which includes my first pair of Saratogas (see post in Swift Historians). Model 801 Serial No 44-702125 which, I guess, makes them 1970?

[elkcub]

I wonder whether that that is part of the series which includes my first pair of Saratogas (see post in Swift Historians). Model 801 Serial No 44-702125 which, I guess, makes them 1970?

True, 1970. In 1959, the Swift-Anderson. Inc. lineup (advertised simply as "Swift") included the 7x35 Holiday, 7x35 Neptune, 8.5x44 Audubon, and 7x21 Altek (being discontinued) as "premium quality." Other quality American pattern binoculars included the #801 8x40/367' Saratoga. Like all the others in the lineup it had removable (Bakelite) eyecups, which Nicolas tells me alway got lost.

The two 801s you discussed on the other thread (with pictures) post-date the one mentioned here, so you have your work cut out as a Saratoga "collector." ;) Apparently, the earliest Saratoga wasn't considered to be at the premium quality level of the Audubons, which were listed "In a Class by itself," but it did earn Mark II status in later years.

Regards,
Ed

[elkcub]

Oh, my. It turns out there were three or more early Type 0 Audubons. Mine actually predates the one shown with removable eyecups in the 1959 Swift-Anderson catalog — and may be a low-production early prototype. It's unclear whether any of these had "Model 804" on the cover plates, although the catalog does refer to at least one of them as model 804. Nicolas Crista tells me that the prisms were "staked," unlike later models which used a prism shelf, and also had a single unit cover with integral eyepiece sleeve. (I'm sure you all wanted to know this.) The manufacturer is still unknown.

Here are two pictures of my Type 0-a before they were sent to Nicolas. Yes, the green lettering is original, and even in this condition the view is outstanding. I removed the clothes line someone used for a strap. |;|

Ed

[elkcub]

It may be that my early Audubons shown above were made in 1951. Nicolas will be sending me a restored pair that probably were made in 1955, with bayonet mount removable eyecups. I had no idea they dated back that far, but the evidence seems to be compelling. Nicolas refers to them as "old, older, and even older." Swift-Anderson marketed "Audubons" as catalog number 504, but they weren't actually marked "Model 504" on the prism plates until Swift Instruments, Inc. was formed in 1960. The old Audubons also didn't have a Japanese makers' mark, because makers' marks didn't appear until the early 1960s.

Ed

[elkcub]

I received the rebuilt vintage Audubon from Nicolas. He was forced to remove the coatings from the left objective due to the cement turning opaque with age. Nonetheless, I can't perceive any difference looking through the coated vs uncoated sides, — which may be because the eyepieces are still coated and have the largest number of air-glass surfaces.

Comparing the 1959 Swift-Anderson and 1961 Swift Instrument catalogs, it is indisputable that the Type-0 design was carried over from one organization to the other. There was an upgrade in coatings from C to FC, and the eyecups evolved through several stages, which needs to be clarified by further research. Otherwise, the internal construction of Type-0s remained unchanged, according to Nicolas. Since the serial numbers proved to be uninformative with regard to manufacturing date, I can only conclude that the model I own with green markings and fixed eyecups (shown a few posts above) was the very first model Audubon, and made some time prior to 1959. The one Nicolas provided has removable bayonet-mount eyecups, and must have been made after 1960.

Although not stenciled on either cover plate, 804 is the "catalog number" of the Type-0 Audubon shown in the 1959 Swift-Anderson catalog, versus the "model number" in the 1961 and subsequent Swift Instruments catalogs.

According to Nicolas, who was trained in Germany and quite familiar with Zeiss and Leica products, the Type-0 Audubon was a Cadillac of it's day using the finest materials and few short-cuts in construction or assembly. The cover plate, for example, is made of hard extruded aluminum, with an integral ocular tube, and secured to the body with no less than four fine-threaded screws and a cork underlayment. The net result was a rock solid eyepiece assembly with virtually no wiggle to the bridge. These precision instruments did require skilled workers to assemble, however, and were no doubt more expensive to produce than later models.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever. :t:

Ed

[orbitaljump]

Green label Audubon available at auction.

[elkcub]

I asked the dealer a question about the eyecups, which apparently do come off. My guess is that both eyecups have a friction fit, but the dealer is confusing the diopter control on the right side. If anyone buys this early specimen I would greatly appreciate establishing communication so we can discuss the details. This may be a second variant of the green model, or my specimen my be missing its eyecups (which I've half way suspected.)

Ed

[orbitaljump]

Didnt bid, though they went for an attractive price and with great acccessories. Someone got a fine piece of history and some quality optics.

[treeman55]

UPDATE



5. I purchased a pair of Fully Coated Swift Model 766 7x35 Holiday Mark II (ca. 1978) on eBay to evaluate its 80.15 deg., super-wide 600 ft. FOV. Unfortunately, they were quite dirty inside and in need of collimation, which made the economics a bit iffy. The super-wide FOV is interesting, although frankly I don't know what to make of it. The 1968 catalog said: "The Holiday delivers an incredibly wide field, equal to that of the human eye, without distortion..." This will take some time to understand. In 1971 they sold the same model with a 630 ft. field of view.



Regards to all,
ED

Hello to all
I found this site searching for information on Swift binoculars. I have learned a lot reading the posts. Haven't downloaded the historical paper yet but looking forward to that also.
My interest stems from my purchase of a pair of Swift Holiday Mark 11 binoculars which I have to say produce a most astonishing view. You just say "wow" when you put them up to your eyes. You are transported there. FOV is 578 @ 1000 yds. Based on the information gathered from other posts here, the serial number would indicate they were made in 1964. They have the wide chrome bars on pupil knobs, and on the center focuser. Wanting to see firsthand where these stood against other Swifts, I bought a pair of Saratoga's (no mark #) of the approximate same vintage and was not impressed by them. I would have to guess that all of the higher quality components were used in this Holiday Mark 11 to produce this view, and when you hold them out to look at the exit pupil shape, you don't see the square frame inside as shown in the post addressing that issue, but you can faintly see the tops of the prisms which appear rounded and set back.
I realize this thread is getting pretty old now, but maybe other Swift enthusiasts will enjoy reading this info.
Dennis

[elkcub]

Hi Dennis,

I can't remember exactly what I said about my Holiday Mark II, but it was one of my few disappointments. I sent my specimen off to Nicolas Crista for servicing, but the BK7 prisms still got in the way of the wide view. Vignetting is ever present. Nick thinks the wrong prisms somehow got installed. That could have happened at the factory or by someone else later.

So, your observations are very important and renew my faith in the quality of the original "Mark II" series. Yours correspond to Type 1 Audubons. Mine were made in 1978, and have the same body style as the Type 2.

Installing the wrong prisms isn't too preposterous, I guess, since I know that Hiyoshi Kogaku made the same style binoculars for several companies other than Swift. I picked up an old binocular case in a thrift shop a few months ago, only to discover that it had an 8x40 Linet Ultra-Wide Fieldmaster inside. The field of view -- 12 degrees, or 628.8 ft. Prisms, BaK4, and the exit pupils are round like yours. I have yet to send it to Nick for alignment.

Are you using the Holiday on holiday?

Welcome to BirdForum, BTW.
Ed

[treeman55]

Thank's Ed for the welcome.
Great job on the thrift store find. Is the Linet a well known binocular? That is the widest field I have heard of I believe. My family is beginning to look at me funny when I look at or mention buying any binoculars now. I just look at them and say "OK, I realize I have a problem". Anyway all in fun and learning. I wanted to mention that I saw, maybe a month or two ago, a pair of glasses on that bidding site that were located in GB that were the identical match to my Holiday 11 but were marked Panoramic. They were the same mod # (766) and everything. The word "Panoramic" was the only thing written on the cover plates that didn't match. Yes, I use the Holiday's when I go out to view. They are my number 1 pair. Also, I downloaded your and Renze's paper and printed it. Thank you for it. I am enjoying slowly absorbing the information. A question, do you feel that the quality (view clarity) of the 804 has stayed consistent over all the years? I read some posts about the ED's which sounded like they were the best thing yet.

[Patrick_V]

I just bought a Swift 10x50 Kestrel Audubon HR/5 model 826 for 35 euro :t:

type 4b(1)

The writing/markings are starting to fade near the edge of the bino, but otherwise is in pristine condition!

35 euro's is a laugh for this bino, I realy like it already!

[chartwell99]

I just bought a Swift 10x50 Kestrel Audubon HR/5 model 826 for 35 euro :t:

type 4b(1)

The writing/markings are starting to fade near the edge of the bino, but otherwise is in pristine condition!

35 euro's is a laugh for this bino, I realy like it already!

You will like it even more the longer you use it. The Kestrel and its lower power porro Audubon cousin are never fail to please binoculars.

[Patrick_V]

Altough it is not the 804 model I thougt it was worth mentioning.

[elkcub]

Thank's Ed for the welcome.
Great job on the thrift store find. Is the Linet a well known binocular? That is the widest field I have heard of I believe. My family is beginning to look at me funny when I look at or mention buying any binoculars now. I just look at them and say "OK, I realize I have a problem". Anyway all in fun and learning. I wanted to mention that I saw, maybe a month or two ago, a pair of glasses on that bidding site that were located in GB that were the identical match to my Holiday 11 but were marked Panoramic. They were the same mod # (766) and everything. The word "Panoramic" was the only thing written on the cover plates that didn't match. Yes, I use the Holiday's when I go out to view. They are my number 1 pair. Also, I downloaded your and Renze's paper and printed it. Thank you for it. I am enjoying slowly absorbing the information. A question, do you feel that the quality (view clarity) of the 804 has stayed consistent over all the years? I read some posts about the ED's which sounded like they were the best thing yet.

Dennis,

Well, I've discovered that if you're on the lookout for quality optics, those little bargains will fall into your hands fairly often. There are many out there, and fortunately I have my share. I'm not familiar with "Panoramic," but would guess that Swift-Pyser, Ltd. added it to the cover plate. Otherwise, it's the same as the American version. If marked JL E-45 it was made by Tamron Optical Co.

Over the years, Swift made four major changes in the body design of the 804 and others in the Mark II series. The first version was sold by Swift-Anderson during the late 1950s and a few years after the company changed name to Swift Instruments in 1960. It only had "coated optics," meaning not all surfaces were coated like yours, which has a brighter image. Yours is the second version made in 1964 with "fully coated" optics. It also has a close focus to 10 ft., which is excellent even by today's standards.

From the early days, Model #766 has been only slightly less expensive than the Model #804. In 1969 your model was exactly the same price as the 804 at $132.00 (quite a lot for a binocular). So, considering the quality I'm not at all surprised you enjoy the view! It's also a nice collector's piece.

In my opinion the quality of the 804 improved as coatings improved, and also when the small body Type-4 was introduced in the mid 1980s. That's because the eye relief was increased along with the first multi-coatings. The standard 804 HR/5 with fully multi-coated optics (Type 4b(2)) would be very hard to beat today. Not impossible, but hard.

The 804ED is really a very special instrument, probably made in very small numbers. In my opinion they were the "best" 804 ever produced, and represented a true breakthrough until Zeiss came out with the FL and others followed. It is a binocular worth owning if you're lucky enough to find one.

Regards,
Ed

[elkcub]

I just bought a Swift 10x50 Kestrel Audubon HR/5 model 826 for 35 euro :t:

type 4b(1)

The writing/markings are starting to fade near the edge of the bino, but otherwise is in pristine condition!

35 euro's is a laugh for this bino, I realy like it already!

Oh, yes, I very much agree with Chartwell99. You got an outstanding bargain! I can't quite make out the serial number. What is it?

Ed

[treeman55]

Ed,
Thanks again for the response. It's good to know that not just the earlier versions were of high quality. I had to have my own 804 to check out this legendary bird glass, so I bought one that I saw for sale a while back. (It hasn't arrived yet) After reading the review of all of the Audubon's, I realize mine is what you call a type 1c with the two silver or white rings near the front objective. Looks sweet. I think I can call it good now. Well, OK I also bought an 8X30 Zeiss Oberkochen. Anyway, I think I'm cured now. (unless I stumble onto something wonderful at a yard sale) I went for the type 1 because I recognized the same eyepieces as my Holiday and figured that it had to be near the same vintage and as good or better. After reading in your paper on the 804 and the RLE number, the type 1 will have RLE 44 and the Holiday Mk11 is RLE 41.3. Can't wait.
Happy viewing
Dennis

[Patrick_V]

Oh, yes, I very much agree with Chartwell99. You got an outstanding bargain! I can't quite make out the serial number. What is it?

Ed

The serial number is 960070

Unfortunatly I found out that is miscollimated a little. During daytime this is not so obvious, I have good eye accomodation for misaligning and fieldcurvature, but yesterday during stargazing it was quite in the face! :eek!:

Now I'm not that scared of miscollimated optics so I gave it a go. But the collimation screws were as stuck as can be, mabe they used locktite or something like that. So when I find a good fitting screwdriver (or make one) I will give it another go! :t:

[Simon S]

James I would be interested in what you think of your Saratoga's performance wise.
On the subject of Swifts, there have been a pair of Supreme 10x50's just go for over £150 on that site!

[elkcub]

The serial number is 960070

Unfortunatly I found out that is miscollimated a little. During daytime this is not so obvious, I have good eye accomodation for misaligning and fieldcurvature, but yesterday during stargazing it was quite in the face! :eek!:

Now I'm not that scared of miscollimated optics so I gave it a go. But the collimation screws were as stuck as can be, mabe they used locktite or something like that. So when I find a good fitting screwdriver (or make one) I will give it another go! :t:

Patrick,

Your binocular is quite valuable, regardless of what you paid for it. My strong suggestion is to send it to a repairman, for example, Wm de Boer, Technolyt, Netherlands.

The external prism screws are somewhat difficult to understand and will bottom out. That's part of the problem.

Please send a PM to Renze de Vries if you need more assistance.

Regards,
Ed

PS. Your Kestrel was made in 1996, and probably #70 that year. The cover plate has the "Audubon" stencil, which makes it preferred with collectors. Later Swift removed it due to issues with the American Audubon Society. The optics might be multi-coated (as stated) or fully multi-coated, as was the case with some of the Audubons of that period. I suspect it's FMC based on the photos.

[elkcub]

James I would be interested in what you think of your Saratoga's performance wise.
On the subject of Swifts, there have been a pair of Supreme 10x50's just go for over £150 on that site!

Simon,

Your photos are great. :t:

[Simon S]

Simon,

Your photos are great. :t:

Thanks elkcub, I thought I would share my out of control passion/ obsession

[Patrick_V]

I couldn't resist checking out if I could fix the problem myself. Carfully twitching by little turns of the screw and looked at a distant object from a 30cm behind my bino. By a stoke of luck only one collimation screw had to be turned about 1/4th a turn CCW (bottom right screw). This was half the distance I dared to turn after Ed's warning.
I will recheck collimation on the stars in the near future and fine tune the last bit on the pinpoint stars!

The reason I couldn't turn the screw last time was because it is angled in ton he bino housing. I thougt it was in on a right angle on the housing.
Silly what a bit of daylight can do to eye judgement. :king:

[treeman55]

Got my 804's & they are beauties. Came with the box and all the original paperwork inside. User guide and warranty card. (not original receipt) When I put the strap on the case, I could see that it had not been on before. Awesome view.
Dennis

[elkcub]

Nice going, Dennis. That is some piece of equipment.

Ed

[ceasar]

They ARE really nice! The case is 1st Class, to be sure. No one is making any thing like that today.

I'm curious here; I don't see any color reflections in the objective lenses or the oculars. Is this an early example of the 804?
Bob

[treeman55]

They ARE really nice! The case is 1st Class, to be sure. No one is making any thing like that today.

I'm curious here; I don't see any color reflections in the objective lenses or the oculars. Is this an early example of the 804?
Bob

Thank's Ed for the compliment on the glasses.

Hi Bob

Yes, according to the paper written by Ed and Renze, it is the 3rd model of the first body style made by Tamron Optical co. The serial # begins with 68 so that seems to indicate the year of production. As noted in their paper, it is curious that it would be called a featherweight. Maybe it's a psychological suggestion so that the weight won't bother you so much as it hangs on your neck. Anyway, I'm enjoying using it.

[elkcub]

Dennis,

My very first Audubon was the same model Type-1c. When I opened the case I was confronted by two orbs of glass covered by a uniform layer of a very fine white powder. It was as if I were opening King Tut's tomb.

It turned out that the cement on the inside lining of the cover had deteriorated over time into a very fine powder that settled on the exposed lenses. Other than that the instrument was absolutely perfect, like yours. It was easy enough to clean and re-glue the lining, and my Giotto hand blower prevented the lenses from being scratched. So, I have a pretty good idea of your reaction to this beauty from the past.

Of course, in my case the experience got me started looking into the Audubon's history—which has been a lot of fun. There is nothing quite like having a specimen in hand to understand the state of technology. However, I wasn't really satisfied until Renze and I were able to nail down the elusive Type-0.

It gradually became clear to me that one of the continuing struggles in Audubon history was how to deal with eye relief and eyecup design. Type-1c was the third or forth effort, which involved only a 2-3mm screw-out eyecup. Obviously, this was expensive to manufacture but not very effective. Still, the eyecup didn't get lost like the earlier push-on and bayonet mounted ones made of bakelite.

Ed

[Kevin Purcell]

As noted in their paper, it is curious that it would be called a featherweight. Maybe it's a psychological suggestion so that the weight won't bother you so much as it hangs on your neck.

Or perhaps evidence that the marketing department had an ironic sense of humor.

[treeman55]

Ed, great to hear of your original find on the 1-c's and that they cleaned up nice. You mentioned blowing off the lenses in cleaning. I was told by someone that you never want to wipe binocular lenses to clean them. I have to admit that I have wiped them with my shirt many times in the field but am careful not to pull dirt from the edges across the glass, or I might wet a small piece of tissue and clean the lenses. I haven't scratched anything that I can tell so far. Should I knock off that practice?

A funny thing, speaking of the screw out eye cups on the Audubon, I didn't realize they were on my Holiday Mk11 until I read about and used them on the Audubon and thought "hey these have the same eyepieces as the Holiday" so I grabbed one and turned it and guess what. eye cups. No wonder my eyes always seemed to be just a little too close. I actually like them, and as you said, you won't be losing them.
Also, my curiosity is aroused. What is the elusive type-O Audubon?

[elkcub]

Hi Dennis,

The basic idea is to first get any hard particles of dirt/dust off the glass so they can't scratch the thin coatings or the glass itself. A hand blower and lens brush work very well, just as on a camera lens. After that I like to use a cotton swab with alcohol, finished by a dry cotton wipe. Zeiss/Swaro lens cleaner is also fine. The blower/brush is usually all that's needed in the field. Tuck in your shirt. ;)

Ed

[treeman55]

Thanks Ed for the recommend. I'll get the brush.

[treeman55]

I'm talking to myself here now, but I felt I had to make another statement in defense of the Saratoga binocular I commented on in post #142. I said that I had purchased an older 8X40 Saratoga and was not impressed with the view. After considering what was wrong with the image, I realized it was very sharp but just hazy. I Sent them off to Nicolas Crista for cleaning and collimation and what a difference. Now they just may be my brightest pair of glasses. Beautiful sharp image.

[elkcub]

...I Sent them off to Nicolas Crista for cleaning and collimation and what a difference. Now they just may be my brightest pair of glasses. Beautiful sharp image.

Sometimes I wonder how many great glasses have been sold or discarded just because they're dirty, stiff, or out of collimation. And, I'll bet, as often as not they were replaced by inferior products.

You've motivated me to send off my 8x40 Linet Ultrawide's for Nick's famous bi-century service. :-O

Ed

[treeman55]

Great Idea Ed
Let's do our part to keep the oldies alive to be enjoyed by others.
I think Nicolas appreciates the business also. He was very pleasant to speak to.
Also, I'm finding that it's easy to become addicted to "Extra Wide Field".
Dennis

[elkcub]

For the last year or two I've been evaluating several classy binoculars, including the Nikon 8x32 SE and LXL, and the older Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P, — all of which I purchased and use. They are all great birding binoculars.

However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use. The key is keeping the instrument in top condition, but that can really be said about all the others too.

For those who share what I believe to be the unique 804 experience, I've attached Swift-Anderson's writeup about the Type-0, which appeared in a recently discovered 1959 catalog. I was amazed that they saw it the same way at the very beginning as I do now. Of course, they did improve the 804 along the way. :t:

Ed

[chartwell99]

However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use.
Ed

Ed - Thanks so much for sharing the Swift write-up. I am always amazed and delighted when I use my 804 Audubon (HR5) and wish I bought when available the ED model with its better weather sealing to deal with the Texas morning humidity on the lenses. The write-up is also interesting in that I had not realized that the Neptune has a wider FOV.The numbers may bear that out but the Audubon seems noticeably the wider field binocular.

[Steve C]

However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use. The key is keeping the instrument in top condition, but that can really be said about all the others too.

Ed

That's a good post Ed. I have to agree with it too. What I notice after using mine for awhile is that the extra .5x magnification, for me anyway, seems to manifest itself at the longer distances at which the magnification is useful.

When I got mine, I really thought that there was nothing much the matter with them. However, I could occasionally hear a bit of a rattle from somewhere. There was also quite a bit of play in the eyepiece bridge and the diopter ring I thought moved far too easily. So I boxed them up and sent them to Nicholas Crista. He found a loose prism plate, cleaned them and collimated them to "his" standard. He eliminated the bridge flex and tightened up the diopter. Holy cow, what a difference that made.

Sometimes as we use a binocular we get used to its slight levels of deterioration and simply do not realize they are there. So some sort of critical examination is useful. So is having someplace to send them.

[elkcub]

Good eye, Tom. I've attached pg 4, which includes the 7x35 Neptune that had a FOV of 365 ft. The Audubon's AFOV would be 69.75 deg vs. a rather narrow 48.7 deg Neptune. Obviously, they made a boo-boo.

(Steve)...Sometimes as we use a binocular we get used to its slight levels of deterioration and simply do not realize they are there. So some sort of critical examination is useful. So is having someplace to send them.

Right, that's human adaptation for ya. Somewhat akin to watching moss grow. :-O

Ed

[Pinewood]

Hello Ed,

From the advertisement, I learned that 8.5 magnification was pushing the limit, as Swift recommended bracing the instrument in use. I certainly think so, as do some experts about the utility of binoculars with magnifications above eight. Before WW II, the standard birding glass may have been a 6x30, but that may have been due to poor light transmission before coating. 7x35's would have had the same illunination but more bulk. Post World War II, 8x40, and even 10x40 seem to have become rather popular.
I wonder if the market has shifted to appealing to "real men," who think they can handle those magnifications steady and don't tire from carrying the weight. Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

[Renze de Vries]

For those who share what I believe to be the unique 804 experience, I've attached Swift-Anderson's writeup about the Type-0, which appeared in a recently discovered 1959 catalog.Ed

I wonder who wrote this promotional text. Could Hop Swift have done it himself? It's quite remarkable, as it makes use of a polemical style you won't often find in writeups like this. The Audubon is portrayed in juxtaposition to other models by summing up what it does NOT have (and what's lacking in those other models as well!) and in what conditions it better should NOT be used.
A truly great piece of writing.

Renze

[Kevin Purcell]

I wonder if the market has shifted to appealing to "real men," who think they can handle those magnifications steady and don't tire from carrying the weight. Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.

The Vukabratovich bin design paper shows that the measured result the efficiency (the effective magnification) of handheld 10x bins is greater handheld 7x bins. You can see more (identify targets at father range). It does shake more but with typical shake the higher magnification still has an advantage.

This leads to the classic FOV versus magnification trade off.

The other trend of the late 1950 and 1960s along with higher magnification of course was wide field bins. The thread on Chandler Robbin's bins pointed out those Bushnell Featherweight 10x50 had a 7 degree field. Even the Zeiss 10x50 in the 1960s and early 70s offered a 128m at 1km. That's a 7.3 degree field. So the penalty was not as great as it is now with even the best 10x bin getting up to 6.8 degrees field (Zeiss, Leica) and most a bit less.

I think at this time there was a "7-10 split" just starting to develop. Anyone have any concrete data on when 10x became more popular with birders? I used to think this was the late 1960s but I'm beginning to believe it was in the 1950s. I would think the change in models offered by a particular company (like Swift) might reveal how people moved to a higher magnification. And I think Swift at the time catered for both groups.

BTW, was this model the first 8.5x bin?

[elkcub]

I wonder who wrote this promotional text. Could Hop Swift have done it himself? It's quite remarkable, as it makes use of a polemical style you won't often find in writeups like this. The Audubon is portrayed in juxtaposition to other models by summing up what it does NOT have (and what's lacking in those other models as well!) and in what conditions it better should NOT be used.
A truly great piece of writing.

Renze

There is a laudable 'truthiness' about the writeup, but, of course, the word wasn't invented until a few years ago. ;)

Kevin, I don't know if the Audubon was the first 8.5x on the market, but the added magnification also compensates for a loss in perceived size compared to an 8x roof design. The 8x30/32 roofs that I own produce similar sized apparent objects.

Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)

Ed

[elkcub]

... Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.


Hi Arthur,

True. Increased magnification and reduced FOV do produce a combined compromise greater than either considered separately. I find that the 10x50 Audubon/Kestrel is considerably more birding worthy than the 10x42 SLC, for example, primarily because of the FOV difference: 7 deg vs 6.3. Without the larger FOV, tracking ability is compromised.

For my money, I find the 8.5x of the Audubon is just about right, since the AFOV is maintained at very close to 70 deg. (69.75). The Kestrel really does require some propping up for the long view.

Ed

[Kevin Purcell]

Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)

I think in this case Bob is joking but the more appropriate average for magnifications (multiplications) is the geometric mean: sqrt(7*10) = 8.333.

Which, of course, doesn't really prove anything. Except someone should make 8.33x bins ;)

Good point about the x8.5 compensating for the "smaller" image in porros.

I noticed this myself (again) when comparing a 10x42 porro to Canon IS 10x30 recently. Clearly it's all down to objective lens seperation (rather than roof versus porro).

I'm still surprised we don't see more wide 10x bin. Perhaps "wide bins" will be a differentiator of the future too.

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by caesar
Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)I think in this case Bob is joking but the more appropriate average for magnifications (multiplications) is the geometric mean: sqrt(7*10) = 8.333.

Which, of course, doesn't really prove anything. Except someone should make 8.33x bins ;)

Good point about the x8.5 compensating for the "smaller" image in porros.

I noticed this myself (again) when comparing a 10x42 porro to Canon IS 10x30 recently. Clearly it's all down to objective lens seperation (rather than roof versus porro).

I'm still surprised we don't see more wide 10x bin. Perhaps "wide bins" will be a differentiator of the future too.

On average I tend to think Bob is right. But, ... it's only a tendency. |:P|

Ed

[treeman55]

I've attached pg 4, which includes the 7x35 Neptune.

Ed

Hi Ed,
I would like to see the catalog page (if you have it) that describes the Holiday Mkll since that is the binocular that originally got me interested in the Swifts.
Thanks,
Dennis

[elkcub]

Which Holiday do you have, again? Type 1?

[treeman55]

Yes, I believe so. There are photos on post #142
It looks similar to the vintage of the glasses in the catalog except that the focus is between the hinges.

[elkcub]

Dennis,

Here is the page showing your 766 Holiday from the 1969 Swift Instruments catalog, along with the Audubon (Type-1c), and 802 Neptune of the day.

Ed

Hey, waddaya know? At that time they were also making a 9x35 Trilight MkII roof with an air-spaced objective and 5-element Erfle type eyepiece. By josh, also more expensive than the Audubons.

[treeman55]

Ed
I printed up the page and will keep it.
Hey, now the Trilyte Mkll roof will be something to watch for.
Thank you again for the help, you are most considerate.
Dennis

[Jonathan B.]

I have been thinking about the attribute, "Feather Weight," proclaimed on the first (Type 0) and several subsequent 804s. If the binocular really was developed according to suggestions of ornithologists, then this statement might be more than hype. But "Feather Weight" compared to what?

A lot of information exists about military binoculars, so we know their intended applications. And clearly many commercial bins made before and after WWII were not intended for "birding," but for opera and sports observation, and for travel.

So what binoculars were preferred by ornithologists and some of the earliest non-professional "birders" after WWII? Between the war and the time that the earliest 804 was introduced, did those folks--in an effort to have bins that were brighter and perhaps with higher magnification than the common, commercial products--use military surplus binoculars?

I haven't looked at any books on binoculars or the history of binoculars, but I have done a lot of searching on the Internet, and I haven't found anything on the history of binoculars as used for birding. If ornithologists and birders were using surplus bins--some of which were very heavy--in the first ten or fifteen years following the war, could that explain "Feather Weight"?

Obviously many of those heavy military bins had independent focus and would have been impractical in the field. But I'm curious. Has anybody studied this topic? Surely some of those folks are still around and might have some information.

[ceasar]

The current edition of the "Hawk Mountain News" (Autumn 2009) has a picture on page 16 of Board Member and noted bird expert Chandler Robbins holding what I think are old and huge 10 x 50's held by what appears to be a shoestring strap around his neck. These binoculars make the Swift 804 look petite. I don't know what brand they are but they have to weigh at least 3 pounds if they are an ounce! And from the scars and dents on them, they look like they were used as a blunt instrument on a few occasions. He still uses them, and I would think that he is the person to contact for your information.
Bob

[Jonathan B.]

The current edition of the "Hawk Mountain News" (Autumn 2009) has a picture on page 16 of Board Member and noted bird expert Chandler Robbins holding what I think are old and huge 10 x 50's held by what appears to be a shoestring strap around his neck. These binoculars make the Swift 804 look petite. I don't know what brand they are but they have to weigh at least 3 pounds if they are an ounce! And from the scars and dents on them, they look like they were used as a blunt instrument on a few occasions. He still uses them, and I would think that he is the person to contact for your information.
Bob

Thanks for that. I can't get the newsletter online, but I found a photo of him with those bins on the Patuxent WRC site. He has probably had such a productive career in birding because he never wasted time on BF arguing about mostly imagined differences between his Louisville Slugger 10x70 and somebody else's glass. I'll locate him and see what he might know.

[henry link]

There is a thread about Chandler Robbins' bins here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=144506

[Jonathan B.]

There is a thread about Chandler Robbins' bins here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=144506

Thanks Henry. I'm off to work, but I'll read and follow all those other links later.

Somewhere in the past week I saw the weight of the SARD Mark 43, which was four pounds, and that is what got me thinking about this. Granted, nobody would have used the SARD for birding, except for scanning a body of water or giant mudflat. But maybe people were accustomed to great optics coming at the price of weight.

Incidentally, from just reading the PWRC page on him, Robbins is clearly not a "birder" as I said before, but one of the most accomplished ornithologists in North America.

[jaymoynihan]

Thank you folks for this fascinating .
I saw mention of "Japanese manufacturer, Hiyoski Kogaku, Ltd."
If i am not mistaken, they also manufacture the well known to amatuer astronmers "University Optics" Orthoscopic eyepieces, which are inexpensive, yet highly regarded for lunar and planetary viewing.

[Jonathan B.]

In prior posts to this thread, the Swift 9x42 was mentioned. One just sold on eBay in the UK and photos are still online. It's a great looking binocular, and as the seller says, it's hard to imagine why Swift-Pyser would have marketed something so close to the 804R. Here is the link. If it doesn't work, be sure to highlight the entire thing before pasting in to your browser:


http://cgi.ebay.com/SWIFT-AUDUBON-SPWA-9X42-BIRDWATCHING-BINOCULAR_W0QQitemZ130338494026QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ UK_Photography_Binoculars_ET?hash=item1e58c7964a#h t_762wt_946

[elkcub]

Yes, it is interesting. Unfortunately, a confusion that defies easy classification is that the Audubon version marketed in the 1984-5 Pyser catalog was labeled "HR/5" and not 804R, as in North America. It is, therefore, a Type 4a variant. In addition, the first Type 4b sold in America some years later was also labeled HR/5 with MC optics, but many were actually FMC. So, the British were the first to use HR/5 on the prism cover, terminology that was only later adopted by Swift USA. The Brits didn't have a model 804, incidentally, since their catalog was organized differently. The 804R is the "112-224 Swift Audubon HR/5 BWCF 8.5x44" (for what it's worth). :eek!:

These differences resulted from the terms of the licensing agreement between Swift and Pyser, which allowed Pyser broad latitude to market the Hiyoshi-built SWPA series. Hyoshi-Kogaku, however, also sold similar configurations under different brand names in Europe and North America. To my knowledge, only Swift or their partners could market the 8.5x44 configuration — the venerable Audubon.

Ed

[brocknroller]

I'm selling my VG-excellent condition Swift 804 Audubon HR/5 MC binoculars with brandy new leather covered hard case at original cost - $259.99

Take a look:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=156183

Thanks!

[ceasar]

Geez it's hard keeping track of the variations in these 804's! Mine say "fully multi coated" on the left prism housing with HR/5 just above it. On the right prism housing it says "Swift Audubon." And I got a soft case with it! Darn!

How bout we trade cases? Maybe I could throw in a proto roof prism by Fujinon. 7 x 42 copy of a Leitz 7 x 42 with serial number 00201. circa 1984. A real collectors item which will illustrate just how far Roof Prism binoculars have progressed in 25 years!
Cordially,
Bob

[brocknroller]

Geez it's hard keeping track of the variations in these 804's! Mine say "fully multi coated" on the left prism housing with HR/5 just above it. On the right prism housing it says "Swift Audubon." And I got a soft case with it! Darn!

How bout we trade cases? Maybe I could throw in a proto roof prism by Fujinon. 7 x 42 copy of a Leitz 7 x 42 with serial number 00201. circa 1984. A real collectors item which will illustrate just how far Roof Prism binoculars have progressed in 25 years!
Cordially,
Bob

Bob,

Thanks for the offer, but I'm no longer a collector. This recession has pushed me out of the "business".

I'm selling off what's left of my classic porro collection (8x and 12x SE (*SOLD*), 8x50 Octarem (*SOLD*), 804 Audubons (one sold, one for sale), 6x30 FMTR-SX (*SOLD*), Nikon 8x35 WF (sharp and contrasty as the SE but short ER, way better than the Action IV or EX, there were new "old stock" I picked up, and are still in mint condition).

Because of the recession, the porros were sold at cost or close to cost even though they were all in very good to excellent condition and could probably garner more $$$ on an auction site if Happy Days [WERE] Here Again.

If you are into collecting roof prism bins, I have a Jap. made rubber armored 9x63 MC roof with Abbe-Koenig prisms (circa 1986). Caps, original strap, and hard case included. The front end cap that had the name of the manufacturer is missing. So I don't know what company made these.

They look very similar to a 9x63 Optolyth, in terms of the armoring and frame, but Jap. made.

Unfortunately, they are out of collimation, so you would need to get them repaired or fix them yourself, which is why I haven't put them up for sale.

I can take some photos, if you're interested.

[Jonathan B.]

Brock, I just sent you a PM.

[ceasar]

Brock,
I'm not really into collecting old roofers. I happen to have 3 of them. Two 7 x 42's: The Fujinon and the Leitz Trinovid, and a Minolta Mariner 8 x 32. It is enlightening to compare them with recent Roof Prism's. I can see the improvement instantly. I can go from the poor 7 x 42 Fujunons to the good (but lacking Phase coating) Leitz and then to the modern and excellent Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid and I can compare the poor Minolta Mariner to my excellent 8 x 32 LX L. It's a small, visual historical record of the improvement in the optics of roof prism binoculars!
Bob

[brocknroller]

Brock,
I'm not really into collecting old roofers. I happen to have 3 of them. Two 7 x 42's: The Fujinon and the Leitz Trinovid, and a Minolta Mariner 8 x 32. It is enlightening to compare them with recent Roof Prism's. I can see the improvement instantly. I can go from the poor 7 x 42 Fujunons to the good (but lacking Phase coating) Leitz and then to the modern and excellent Leica 7 x 42 Trinovid and I can compare the poor Minolta Mariner to my excellent 8 x 32 LX L. It's a small, visual historical record of the improvement in the optics of roof prism binoculars!
Bob

Bob,

It's too bad that the price difference isn't as incremental as the coatings improvements!

According to Henry, roof prism evolution is more complex than merely better coatings. See my thread on "Incremental Improvements" for his comments.

Btw, I just sold my 804 FMC Audubon. Another Porro dinosaur made extinct by the K-T Roof Prism Event (aka "P-coatings).

Jon, Replied to your PM.

[elkcub]

(Brock)...Btw, I just sold my 804 FMC Audubon. Another Porro dinosaur made extinct by the K-T Roof Prism Event (aka "P-coatings).

Rather, another Inimitable 804 Swift Audubon becomes available for a connoisseur to appreciate. ;)