orbitaljump
Well-known member
Didnt bid, though they went for an attractive price and with great acccessories. Someone got a fine piece of history and some quality optics.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Historical Review of Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter elkcub
- Start date
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
Attachments
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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!
Attachments
Last edited:
chartwell99
Well-known member
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.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
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
Silicon Valley, California
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
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
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
Last edited:
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:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
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.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Simon S
Well-known member
Thanks elkcub, I thought I would share my out of control passion/ obsession
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:
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:
Last edited:
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
Dennis
Attachments
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
