Swift Triton 7x35

[MacGee]

I bid for this Swift Triton 7x35 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140075099992&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=004) wide field (12°!) on eBay and lost. Was that lucky, or were they worth a higher bid?

Michael.

[nctexasbirder]

12 degrees!!! how in the world could that be possible!? they look cool....i would love to have a good pair of 7x35 porros...i wonder what the specs are and how old?

[stuart C smith]

I bid for this Swift Triton 7x35 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140075099992&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=004) wide field (12°!) on eBay and lost. Was that lucky, or were they worth a higher bid?

Michael. i have just sold a pair of tasco same [B] body japanese made [ mod 110] 7x35s twelve and a half degrees [657 feet] with high index prisms circa 1960. much the same as the swift tritons for £30.00. your swifts were worth a bit more than the money they made i feel . i also have a pair of tasco international b type body mod 410 7x35 [twelve and a half degree 657 feet ] not a mag body like the 110s]. its a keeper. ebay u.s.a. often has 7x35 wide, wide, angle bins for sale. see also fantao, s site for more info. 110/ 410 tasco imported these in the 60s, from japan , SOME tasco bins are very good, a lot are very bad.

[elkcub]

Michael,

I believe this Swift-Pyser Triton model more or less corresponds with the 7x35 Holiday sold in the US by Swift. The latter has 600 ft. (11.45º) FOV, and has been very disappointing to me because it displays the worst prism reflections I've ever encountered. I think you were lucky to be outbid.

Ed
PS. Swift, USA also sold a narrow-angle Triton with 376ft. FOV. No comment about that one.

[Simon S]

I have to agree with elkcub here. They do suffer horrible reflections from the small BK7 prism's and those huge eye pieces make it hard to get into a position without some sort of image aberration.
Once they are set up though the image is sharp and as with all 7 X35 bins, offer a huge dept of field and field of view.

[Simon S]

I have just bought a pair of Sport King Mark 1's that are the same model as the Triton MKII.
The only major differences are in the focus wheel and objective rings.

[elkcub]

It's rather stunning that they share the same model number but differ in Mk I vs. Mk II designation. Would you mind sharing the Makers marks and s/n with us?

It seems to me you are in a great position to comment on the two ergonomic designs. Which focus control location do you like better?

Thanks,
Ed

[Simon S]

It's rather stunning that they share the same model number but differ in Mk I vs. Mk II designation. Would you mind sharing the Makers marks and s/n with us?

It seems to me you are in a great position to comment on the two ergonomic designs. Which focus control location do you like better?

Thanks,
Ed
Well the Triton's are JB56 ser 26-705558 Hiyoshi Kogaku Co. Ltd and the Sport King's are also JB56 ser 26-711321 also Hiyoshi Kogaku Co. Ltd.

In reply to your question which focus do I prefer, I must say the narrow wheel of the Sport King.
Can you tell me the age from the serial numbers?

[Renze de Vries]

It's rather stunning that they share the same model number but differ in Mk I vs. Mk II designation

Puzzling indeed. The model number used by Swift for all Sport King types issued until the drastic design change to more compact and lighter bodies in 1985 is 704. The redesigned Sport King, although not designated as such was clearly a Mk II type, and got model number 714.
The Tritons model number was 748. As far as I know the Triton never made it to the 'redesigned status'. However, the last Triton issued was special because the FOV suddenly jumped from the usual 376 ft to 630 ft. This last type not only became designated Mk II but got a different model number as well. To the best of my knowledge this model number was 740.

My best guess is that the 704 model number on the Triton MK II pictured is a misprint.

Renze

[elkcub]

Well the Triton's are JB56 ser 26-705558 Hiyoshi Kogaku Co. Ltd and the Sport King's are also JB56 ser 26-711321 also Hiyoshi Kogaku Co. Ltd.

In reply to your question which focus do I prefer, I must say the narrow wheel of the Sport King.
Can you tell me the age from the serial numbers?

For Hiyoshi, the first two digits determines the date of manufacture. So the Tritons are 1970, and the Sport Kings are 1971.

Interesting that you prefer the narrow wheel, since that concept was replaced by a wider wheel with the advent of the smaller Type 4 construction.

Could you provide additional pictures showing the underside of the binoculars?

Ed

[elkcub]

Puzzling indeed. The model number used by Swift for all Sport King types issued until the drastic design change to more compact and lighter bodies in 1985 is 704. The redesigned Sport King, although not designated as such was clearly a Mk II type, and got model number 714.
The Tritons model number was 748. As far as I know the Triton never made it to the 'redesigned status'. However, the last Triton issued was special because the FOV suddenly jumped from the usual 376 ft to 630 ft. This last type not only became designated Mk II but got a different model number as well. To the best of my knowledge this model number was 740.

My best guess is that the 704 model number on the Triton MK II pictured is a misprint.

Renze

Renze,

These bins represent early Type 2 (American) and Type 3 (British) body construction, and I think they're both marked with a 630 ft. FOV. That would make them extra-wide 7x for sure.

I wish we had more catalog materials from the 1970 era.

Ed

[Simon S]

Could you provide additional pictures showing the underside of the binoculars?

Ed

Yes elkcub here you are.
Please note the removal of the eye cups.

[elkcub]

Thanks Simon,

There is no doubt these are Type 2 and 3 construction.

Ed

[Simon S]

For the record The Triton MK1 I have just bought is far easier on the eyes than the MKII version. Fov is stated at 378ft@1000 yards but does suffer very slight barrel distortion.

[elkcub]

For the record The Triton MK1 I have just bought is far easier on the eyes than the MKII version. Fov is stated at 378ft@1000 yards but does suffer very slight barrel distortion.

What's the s/n on those again? And a picture perhaps. That's a fairly narrow FOV, so you might have more eye relief. I'm surprised about barrel distortion — sure it's not pincushion?

Ed

[Simon S]

See the photo attached........
Ser is 4-6821083. Is that 1968?
As for the distortion, you could be right. There is a slightly strange fishbowl effect when panning.........

[Kevin Purcell]

A small amount of pincushion needs to be added compensates for the "rolling ball" or "globe" effect (which you will get from an undistorted field). How much distortion is added seems to be a characteristic of the designer but in this case not enough (or there is a different shape to the distortion at the edge of the field).

See Holger's paper on this:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=74727
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf

[elkcub]

See the photo attached........
Ser is 4-6821083. Is that 1968?
As for the distortion, you could be right. There is a slightly strange fishbowl effect when panning.........

Yes, made in 1968, — and probably by Tamron. See if it says E-45 on the front hinge.

As for the distortion, look at any vertical, such as a door edge or telephone pole, and see if it bulges out in the middle as you move it towards the edge of the field. It it does you have barrel distortion (very uncommon). If the top and bottom flare outwards, you have pincushion, which is typical. This is due to differential magnification from the center in any radial direction.

As Kevin pointed out, there is a good rationale for having some amount of pincusion, although the psychophysical function was never worked out enough to optimize it. Like Holger, I prefer less than more, since I don't do much scanning.

Do you use glasses?

Ed

[Simon S]

Yes, made in 1968, — and probably by Tamron. See if it says E-45 on the front hinge.

As for the distortion, look at any vertical, such as a door edge or telephone pole, and see if it bulges out in the middle as you move it towards the edge of the field. It it does you have barrel distortion (very uncommon). If the top and bottom flare outwards, you have pincushion, which is typical. This is due to differential magnification from the center in any radial direction.

As Kevin pointed out, there is a good rationale for having some amount of pincusion, although the psychophysical function was never worked out enough to optimize it. Like Holger, I prefer less than more, since I don't do much scanning.

Do you use glasses?


Ed
Hi Elkcub ,no but I have quite bad Astigmatism in the right eye.
JE-45 and JB 26. You certainly know your stuff Elkcub!

[BobinKy]

Here is another Swift Triton on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=110331632682

Auction ends January 5th.

--Bob

[Simon S]

Here is another Swift Triton on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=110331632682

Auction ends January 5th.

--Bob
Look like they may have been in a smoky environment. The Aluminium ocular ridges are yellow!