Audubon 8.5x44 durability issues?

[matt green]

I think I might have done this before?,but anyway...

There has been some mention of durability issues concerning the swift audubon porros,especialy the columnation...and ability to ''stay'' in columnation!

My question is wether they are really that bad,or just comparable with others porros from nikon/bushnell etc.So far I have only had a brief view through a
pair of the non ed model.The main attraction with these is the field of view. Most of the budget roofs (or none of them) have a field of view anything like these audubons,let alone the reputed optics?

The humming and harring continues!!

Matt

[ceasar]

I've never heard of any problems with their durability or columnation on this side of the pond. In fact, their general reputation is that they are as tough as nails. You will have to address this one to the Swift Experts. What say Elk Horn? Er, make that Elk Cub.
Cordially,
Bob

[Renze de Vries]

Hello ceasar,

In general porro binoculars are more susceptable to discollimation than roofs. That said, Swift Audubons are definitely not worse than any other make. On the contrary, the older, 'large type' 804 Audubons will stay in collimation for ages because of the very sturdy eccentric ring-collimation system used in the objectives lenses. For the later, more compact and lighter 804 Audubons, collimation works differently, here the the prisms are adjusted by screws from the outside. While this makes them somewhat more vulnerable in comparison, service is far more easy, and so cheaper.
So don't worry. Used normally they won't give you any trouble. If abused they might lose collimation, but then service is quick and relatively cheap.

Renze

[Pinewood]

Matt,

As far as I know, the issue with the latest Porro Swift Audubon is with its maintaining focus. The bridge is flimsy and flexes from friction with the 'O' rings used to waterproof the binocular. In use, the right dioptre requires frequent adjustment.
Earlier versions of this binocular used eccentric rings at the objectives for collimation while the current model uses the inferior prism setting arrangement. Opticalmen prefer the eccentric ring arrangement, but I cannot write abut how much practical difference there is in reliability.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

[Nick-on]

Hello,
I used to have a pair of Audobon HR/5 8.5x44 for a few years in the late 80's early 90's, I really liked the view through them but unfortunately they suffered a 'slight', and I mean slight, knock which knocked them out of collimation. Got them fixed, 6 months later out of collimation again! Got them fixed again and.....out of collimation again. Gave up and bought a pair of Opticron HR10x42's. seemed much more robust.
HTH

Nick

[Alexis Powell]

Hello,
I used to have a pair of Audobon HR/5 8.5x44 for a few years in the late 80's early 90's, I really liked the view through them but unfortunately they suffered a 'slight', and I mean slight, knock which knocked them out of collimation. Got them fixed, 6 months later out of collimation again! Got them fixed again and.....out of collimation again. Gave up and bought a pair of Opticron HR10x42's. seemed much more robust.
HTH
Nick

I have a friend who got the small 804 Audubon just before the 820 came out. He takes good care of his equipment, but within a few weeks of purchasing them, they were out of alignment. He sent them back to Swift and paid ~$70 to have them aligned. Within a few weeks they were out of alignment again. He didn't act immediately, but eventually sent them back to Swift, spent another $70, and again they went out of alignment. He became frustrated and put them in the closet for a few years. I encouraged him recently to rediscover them, so he sent them in to Swift a few months ago, paid another $70 and they came back to him out of alignment! Unfortunately, he didn't contact Swift immediately to complain and he's not as aggressive as I am, so I'm not sure even now if he has pursued the matter.

I know the story might have been different if my friend were a more aggressive advocate for himself, but to me, the moral of the story is not necessarily that the Swift Audubon goes out of alignment easily (although that certainly is true for my friend's unit!) but that Swift doesn't keep good records of its repairs and that they don't, as a matter of general practice, cover alignment issues under waranty. I've had experience with a number of other companies w/repect to alignment issues with inexpensive porros, especially Bushnell, and the repairs have always been covered under warranty.
--AP

[Tero]

So we have established a problem with the porros. Are the Swift roofs more durable?

[MacGee]

Hello,
I used to have a pair of Audobon HR/5 8.5x44 for a few years in the late 80's early 90's, I really liked the view through them but unfortunately they suffered a 'slight', and I mean slight, knock which knocked them out of collimation. Got them fixed, 6 months later out of collimation again! Got them fixed again and.....out of collimation again. Gave up and bought a pair of Opticron HR10x42's. seemed much more robust.
HTH

NickThis thread is very timely for me. I'm intending to get an 8x40 and was looking at the Audubon 820 8.5x44 and the Opticron HR WP 8x42. The better FOV and brightness (I believe) of the Swift was swinging me towards it, but now it looks as if I'd be better with the Opticron.

Nick, I tried the 10x42 HR WP and thought it was brilliant optically, but the 5° FOV seemed a bit constricting. Presumably you find it okay.

Michael.

[Nick-on]

T
Nick, I tried the 10x42 HR WP and thought it was brilliant optically, but the 5° FOV seemed a bit constricting. Presumably you find it okay.

Michael.

Hello Michael,
Yes and er...no, this was quite a few years ago and doesn't refer to the latest waterproof HR models, can't remember the FOV but I'm pretty sure it was around about the 'normal' 6º or so. I eventually bought a pair of Nikon 8x32HG's but the Opticrons are still on a shelf in the cupboard (along with the other 20 or so pairs of bins)
HTH

Nick

[Tero]

Nick, I started a thread on your reply.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=791272#post791272

[John P]

My 820EDs are OK, about 3-4 years old now, and I've managed to bounce them off the ground a couple of times, hard enough to bend one eyecup, still no problems.

[riecket13]

I've had the same problem, knocked out, repaired, knocked out again. They were legit bumps both times but I still expect a little more, am now in the market for some mid-priced roofs that can take some punishment

[bitterntwisted]

My MK IV 8.5x44 804s are 1984 vintage, and were rarely used by the previous user. They've done 150 long days birding with me without any issues whatsoever, except that they weigh a ton.

[ceasar]

I've had the same problem, knocked out, repaired, knocked out again. They were legit bumps both times but I still expect a little more, am now in the market for some mid-priced roofs that can take some punishment

I also like the idea of Swift's 828 8.5 x 44 RP or their new 825R 7 x 36 RP as "grab and go" all purpose binoculars. Any word on their durability?

Bob

[Tero]

My grab as you go's are now the Eagle Optics 8x32, I find they are bright enough for winter days.

If someone made a similar 8.5x32, with fov at least 370ft, I would be interested.

[elkcub]

I think I might have done this before?,but anyway...

There has been some mention of durability issues concerning the swift audubon porros,especialy the columnation...and ability to ''stay'' in columnation!

My question is wether they are really that bad,or just comparable with others porros from nikon/bushnell etc.So far I have only had a brief view through a
pair of the non ed model.The main attraction with these is the field of view. Most of the budget roofs (or none of them) have a field of view anything like these audubons,let alone the reputed optics?

The humming and harring continues!!

Matt

I can't speak to the durability of the 820, but I can address the 804 and 826. I own four small-body Audubons (804R, 804HR/5, 804ED, and 826HR/5 'Kestrel'). They all employ the same patented collimation method using external screws. I've reviewed the patent disclosure and understand how it works, but can also infer posssible problems if not adjusted by an expert. Basically, each prism is suspended on a three-point plane, with spring loaded screws adjusted from the outside. If any one of the screws is tightened too much, such that it bottoms out, the other two will probably not have the desired effect in changing the tilt of the prism plane. So, I'm reasonably sure that a well trained technician must first unload the springs, by backing out the screws, and then proceed with a careful three-point adjustment. Obviously collimation must be done symmetrically to left and right sides, but most importantly, it must be maintained over the entire range of inter-ocular distances. It is quite possible for collimation to be spot-on at a particular IOD, but go out of spec as the IOD is increased or decreased. As is turned out, this was the case with my precious 804ED, which happened to be optimized for my personal IOD of 64mm, but quickly went out of spec at other distances. Renze's 804ED was in better balance than mine when originally inspected by our master Swift opticalman, Nicolas Crista. Now they are both perfect. :D

As to overall durability its pretty clear that Porro-prism designs are less resistant to shocks than high-end roof designs, such as Swaro SLCs in particular. The Swift 804 (and others in that series) were advertised as having "Dura-Shock" mechanisms from 1985 onward, although I don't know how much reality is reflected in the name. At least the company was concerned about the problem. So, in the end I can only say that given the superb view from a well adjusted 804/826, I'm willing to accept that they need to be handled with greater respect and repaired periodically by a professional. For those who would buy one with the intention of using it, it would be best to assume that routine maintenance will be needed initially.

Ed

[Renze de Vries]

Ed,

Hey, you're so sharp! I sincerely regret calling the 804 Audubons 'easy to collimate, cheap to service'. Because, as you point out here so excellently, good collimation should never be regarded as easy.
Indeed, the bottom line for malfunctioning binoculars - and I mean any binoculars! - is: find yourself a really good repairman.
Thanks.

Renze

[elkcub]

Renze,

Many thanks. I'd be remiss not to point out the classic 2005 CN thread by Bill Cook: 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
... and other well written responses, e.g., by Claudio, etc.
Apparently, the 820 also uses through-the-body external screws for prism adjustments, which clarifies that point. He mentions having used his own 804 Audubon from 1988 to 2005 without any collimation problems (it looks like an HR/5).

It's all very noteworthy.
Ed :scribe:
PS. To see the photo attachment, click on the printer symbol at the lower left of Bill's post, and then link to the attachment at the upper left of the window that appears.

[Alexis Powell]

I posted this message a while back. Below, I provide an update.

I have a friend who got the small 804 Audubon just before the 820 came out. He takes good care of his equipment, but within a few weeks of purchasing them, they were out of alignment. He sent them back to Swift and paid ~$70 to have them aligned. Within a few weeks they were out of alignment again. He didn't act immediately, but eventually sent them back to Swift, spent another $70, and again they went out of alignment. He became frustrated and put them in the closet for a few years. I encouraged him recently to rediscover them, so he sent them in to Swift a few months ago, paid another $70 and they came back to him out of alignment! Unfortunately, he didn't contact Swift immediately to complain and he's not as aggressive as I am, so I'm not sure even now if he has pursued the matter.

I know the story might have been different if my friend were a more aggressive advocate for himself, but to me, the moral of the story is not necessarily that the Swift Audubon goes out of alignment easily (although that certainly is true for my friend's unit!) but that Swift doesn't keep good records of its repairs and that they don't, as a matter of general practice, cover alignment issues under waranty. I've had experience with a number of other companies w/repect to alignment issues with inexpensive porros, especially Bushnell, and the repairs have always been covered under warranty.
--AP

I volunteered to pursue the matter myself, so my friend handed over the Audubon and all his paper work and I took up the task last month. I called Land, Sea and Sky (which does Swift's warranty work now) and had a very pleasant conversation with "Annie" who does the Swift porro repairs nowadays. She assured me that she would get to the bottom of the problem. She called me back after receiving the binos and told me that one of the prisms had become unglued from its mounting carrier, that it probably hadn't been inspected internally the last time it was collimated, and that she would epoxy the prism into place (their standard practice) and then check that all the collimation adjustment springs were adjusted and functioning properly. This repair was covered under warranty. I got the binos back a couple weeks ago and they look beautiful inside and out (nice, very clean repair) and are in perfect alignment! Annie wanted me to know that no porro is immune to possible loss of collimation if bonked about, but that this unit should behave itself from now on.

--AP

[elkcub]

Hi AP,

I'm sorry to have missed your post a year ago, but glad to hear that you worked out the problem for your friend. Actually, in the time frame you mentioned Swift had a "Limited Lifetime Warranty" on instruments containing defective materials or workmanship, which would be "... replaced free of charge for the life of [the] Swift instrument."* In this instance, the prism becoming unglued should have fallen under the replacement warranty. In other words, although the symptom was miscollimation, the cause was a defective instrument, i.e., not just the need for a routine adjustment. Your friend should have a copy of this warranty in the paperwork.

I believe it's never to late to try. So, I would put together a nice letter pointing out that the instrument was finally discovered to be "defective" from the start, and your friend should, therefore, be refunded the three $70 payment that were made, plus postage. The letter would be sent to the current president of Swift Sports Optics. o:D

Elk

* Brochures dated 1999 and 2000. Will send you .pdf copies if you wish.