Swarovski Sale? (1 Viewer)

elkcub · Aug 6, 2014

brocknroller said:
Ed,

That explains why I kept getting image blackouts with Steve's 8x30 SLCneu. It only has 15mm ER, which should have been perfect for me without glasses. The 804 Audubon HR/5 has 14mm ER and it works like a charm, so does the 13.5mm ER on the 8x30 EII. The EII's ER is about my limit. Below 13mm I start having a hard time seeing the full FOV. At 10mm my eyelashes are brushing up against the EPs., and I have to back off.

Usually long ER bins cause image blackouts, such as the Pentax 20x60 PCF, but they are good for eyeglass wearers.

Optical engineers must surely must know that SAEP causes image blackouts, so why then do they design EPs with SAEP such as those used in the 8x30 SLC and Nikon SE series? Is there some benefit to SAEP?

Brock

Brock,

Right. The 8x30 SLCneu has the same optics as the MkIII, and is no different from the MkIII with Swarobright, except for cosmetics.

If you can do that with glasses on I conclude that you are ... near sighted, right? I'm really jealous about the The 804 Audubon HR/5, which is just a bit out of sight for me.

Someone who knows more design optics than I do needs to explain the SAEP problem. With or without glasses I for one don't have any issues with the 18.5 mm 8x42 SLC-HD, 18 mm Zeiss B/GAT*P, or the 19 mm (?) Swift 8.5x44 HHS.

Ed

stephen b · Aug 6, 2014

Swarovski confirmed today that the 7x30 SLC had 18 mm of eye relief. And I know for sure that the 7x30 MK III SLC weighed more than the 8x30 SLC- as I have weighed both side by side. The SLC weighs almost 21 oz and the 8x30 is just under 20 oz. And FOV is 378 ft / 1000 yards.

And the EP design is different in the 7x30 vs the 8x30. Henry Link posted a cut away picture a while back showing a MK I or MK II 8x30 and 7x30 SLC showing the EP design differences. I just saw it a while ago, but now can't seem to find it in a search- or i would post it.

Concerning ER and the 7x30- the original SLC that I bought in 1997 ( 1996 model) was purchased at a local birding shop. The owner was a big Swarovski fan and he is the one that suggested the 7x30 over the 8x30 for my usage. I usually wear glasses and with bino's I can use them either way, but he thought the 7x30 would be better for me with eyeglasses. Plus he was a 7x fan- he loved the 7x42's if not for the weight.

Anyways when I was purchasing them he pointed out how the pull out eye cups on the 7x30 pulled out farther than the eye cups on the 8x30. He was educating me and giving me a lesson of how the eye cup depth is deeper on a larger ER bino. A brother in-law bought a 8x30 later that same eye from same shop.

Well, later on ( about 2 years I think) I saw that Swaro came out with twist out eye cups - probably the same time (1999) when the EL came out. And all the 8x30's and 7x30's made then had twist out EC's. So I called SONA and asked if I could get twist up eye cups for my older 7x30. They said sure and sent me out (2) pairs- one for me and one for my brother in-law's 8x30- because I asked if they could send a pair for his.

When I received them I noticed that the package slip said 2 pairs of 8x30 SLC twist up eye cups. I called them and asked why they did not send me the 7x30 twist out ones. And they told me that the 7x30 and 8x30 were the same twist up cups. I said how can that be since the 7x30's had a longer ER. They said that they only had the one set for both 7x30 and 8x30. They said they only made one type for both 8x30 and 7x30.

I did use the twist ups afterwards with my 7x30's instead of the pull out ones. But I had to hold my bino's farther away on my brow when viewing without glasses on the twist up compared to original pull outs. With glasses obviously it did not matter and the twist up were more convenient.

I ended up selling both sets of eye cups ( original pull out ones and twist up ones) with my sale of my first 7x30. I did not think I was going to get another. A year and a half later when I bought my 2nd 7x30 SLC, I wished I would had kept the original pull out ones from first 7x30. Because I definitely have to hold the binoculars farther out than when I used the pull out ones.

I do have a set of winged eye cups for the 7x30 SLC- made specifically for them; and they worked better than the twist up for viewing without my glasses. They are longer. But they do not work great with glasses, so I hardly ever use them.

S0.... there is probably more than most anyone needs or wants to know about ancient discontinued Swaro bins. Especially on a thread about New Swarovski's being on sale!!

Cheers- B

marinemaster · Aug 6, 2014

Swaro makes one fine piece of glass.

ceasar · Aug 6, 2014

elkcub said:
Brock,

Right. The 8x30 SLCneu has the same optics as the MkIII, and is no different from the MkIII with Swarobright, except for cosmetics.

If you can do that with glasses on I conclude that you are ... near sighted, right? I'm really jealous about the The 804 Audubon HR/5, which is just a bit out of sight for me.

Someone who knows more design optics than I do needs to explain the SAEP problem. With or without glasses I for one don't have any issues with the 18.5 mm 8x42 SLC-HD, 18 mm Zeiss B/GAT*P, or the 19 mm (?) Swift 8.5x44 HHS.[/C

Ed

Ed,

This is a bit off topic but since you mentioned the Swift 8.5x44 HHS my wife and I visited Cape May, NJ this past May and while we were on the deck at the Sanctuary near the Lighthouse a man and a woman, both in their 60s, came by. They were accompanied by a woman guide who was using a Swarovski SLC and carrying a small scope on a tripod.

The man and the woman were each using Swift 8.5x44 HHS binoculars.

That Yellow Dot on it's prism housing is as distinctive as Leica's Red Dot!:king:

Bob

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

Well, we know allbinos' light transmission numbers can be spotty, but Arek rated the HHS as 75% overall, which by today's standards, is pretty low, even lower priced FMC roofs and Porros beat that figure. Plus, reviewers including Steve Ingraham have noted that its a bit dim compared to other roofs in its price range and not as sharp as the 820 Audubon Porro.

@ 6.4* the field of view of Swift's top roof, named after the company's founder, is on par with that of entry level Nikon Monarchs (then again, so is Pentax's top of the line 8x43 ED), and the HHS has also lagged behind in prism coatings, which probably contributes to its lackluster transmission.

Despite these factors, the HHS seems to have a cult following, and my guess the chief reason is its long 19mm ER, which, except for Nikon, you can't find on the alphas.

Swift has yet to make a roof that can compete even at the second-tier level with the Conquest HD, Meopta HD, Vortex Razor HD, Kowa Genesis, etc.

With such as well respected name in optics, and a company that gave us one of the best classic porros of all time, the 804 Audubon, it's a wonder why Swfit hasn't tried to compete in the second-tier segment. Ditto for Pentax, even though their ED bins have a second-tier price tag ($999). Both companies have lagged behind while others have progressed to wider field and brighter roofs.

I know that Swift Optics division was sloughed off from the rest of the company, but Alison Swift is still in charge of the division, isn't she? Think she'd want to put her grandfather's name on a better bin than the Audubon roof.

HHS cult fans, you can pile on now. :smoke:

Brock

ceasar · Aug 6, 2014

Brock,

So what!

It's a well designed, (by HHS himself if I'm not mistaken) reasonably priced, useable binocular anyone, including you, can afford which will do the job but which you would rather mock because it hasn't kept up with all the modern expensive bells and whistles found on the binoculars you cannot afford and which you argue are overpriced!

You don't have to be a cult member to appreciate simple utility!

HHS has been deceased for some time and this past May I saw people dressed normally and acting civilly and enjoying themselves using his binocular! God bless them! We should all be so easily pleased!

They didn't look like cult members to me although was evident they weren't binocular geeks either! They were a normal, well dressed couple!

Take it for what it is worth because you might not be able to get one anymore. It's been out of stock at Eagle Optics for a while. The 6 reviews it has there (one of them mine) average 5 stars. Swift Sports Optics website (dated 2014) has a link to order binoculars but the binocular portion of the website hasn't been up-dated since 2011.

Bob

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

ceasar said:
Brock,

So what!

It's a well designed, (by HHS himself if I'm not mistaken) reasonably priced, useable binocular anyone, including you, can afford which will do the job but which you would rather mock because it hasn't kept up with all the modern expensive bells and whistles found on the binoculars you cannot afford and which you argue are overpriced!

You don't have to be a cult member to appreciate simple utility!

HHS has been deceased for some time and this past May I saw people dressed normally and acting civilly and enjoying themselves using his binocular! God bless them! We should all be so easily pleased!

They didn't look like cult members to me although was evident they weren't binocular geeks either!

Take it for what it is worth.

Bob

Actually, if you write, "so what," it should be followed by a question mark.

"Mock" is too strong a word, "constructive criticism" is the proper term, but I can understand how a devout cult member might not be able to tell the difference. :smoke:

I think old Humphrey died before the HHS came out, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think he'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw those poor transmission numbers and realized that his dream of having a top banana roof was never realized. From all accounts (cult members, aside), the HHS can't hold a torch to its Porro namesake.

As to the price, they could do one of two things, manufacture an upgraded model in China, which they could probably do for not much more than the original is selling for now, OR continue to make it in Japan and sell it at the second-tier price point, which more people can afford than the "mental" prices of alphas today (that last one was a mock, but I attributed that to Tim

).

If you were talking about a Porro, I could understand why you might want to leave well enough alone and just upgrade the AR coatings (that's what I would do with my 804 Audubon), but with roofs, which started life behind Porros due to their inherent "leaky" prisms, the trend is toward wider FsOV, higher transmission, more compact design, and ED glass.

I don't see the need to fight progress especially when it can be had at a relatively less expensive price today than an upgrade could at the time when the HHS was introduced back in the 20th century.

Brock, head organizer of the Movement of Progressive Optics for Swift and Pentax (MOPOSAP)

A2GG · Aug 6, 2014

ceasar said:
Brock,

So what!

It's a well designed, (by HHS himself if I'm not mistaken) reasonably priced, useable binocular anyone, including you, can afford which will do the job but which you would rather mock because it hasn't kept up with all the modern expensive bells and whistles found on the binoculars you cannot afford and which you argue are overpriced!

You don't have to be a cult member to appreciate simple utility!

HHS has been deceased for some time and this past May I saw people dressed normally and acting civilly and enjoying themselves using his binocular! God bless them! We should all be so easily pleased!

They didn't look like cult members to me although was evident they weren't binocular geeks either! They were a normal, well dressed couple!

Take it for what it is worth because you might not be able to get one anymore. It's been out of stock at Eagle Optics for a while. The 6 reviews it has there (one of them mine) average 5 stars. Swift Sports Optics website (dated 2014) has a link to order binoculars but the binocular portion of the website hasn't been up-dated since 2011.

Bob

It has a classic look and seems real nice... long eye relief, 23oz ... would work well for me if I was looking. There are still some remaining on ebay.

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

Annabeth2 said:
It has a classic look and seems real nice... long eye relief, 23oz ... would work well for me if I was looking. There are still some remaining on ebay.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, ER is a big draw of this bin, but you pay for that with a moderate 6.4* TFOV. Due to the slightly higher magnification @ 8.5x, that translates to a a bit less claustrophobic 54.4* AFOV. That's still too tight for me. 57* AFOV is my minimum, 60* or wider, my preference.

The size is just a bit larger than your Trinovid, so you should find it suitable in that regard, but in low light/overcast skies the 75% light transmission will not come near your Trinny.

Even if Swift didn't change the FOV or add ED glass, it could still upgrade the prism coatings to dielectric and add the latest AR coatings to boost the transmission into the mid to high 80s with little added cost. Can't understand why they at least wouldn't do that to bring them into the 21st century.

Brock

A2GG · Aug 6, 2014

brocknroller said:
Yes, as I mentioned earlier, ER is a big draw of this bin, but you pay for that with a moderate 6.4* TFOV. Due to the slightly higher magnification @ 8.5x, that translates to a a bit less claustrophobic 54.4* AFOV. That's still too tight for me. 57* AFOV is my minimum, 60* or wider, my preference.

The size is just a bit larger than your Trinovid, so you should find it suitable in that regard, but in low light/overcast skies the 75% light transmission will not come near your Trinny.

ven if Swift didn't change the FOV or add ED glass, it could still upgrade the prism coatings to dielectric and add the latest AR coatings to boost the transmission into the mid to high 80s with little added cost. Can't understand why they at least wouldn't do that to bring them into the 21st century.

Brock

yeah I did see the very narrow FOV in the specs, but I've had many bins with narrow fov and always able to adapt ok. I'd still give the classic Swift a shot.

No, it's not the Trinovid, but neither is my Katmai and (probably not) the Minox BL I have coming. I recently tried the 10x BL b/c I've been thinking about adding a 10x for a long time.
It didn't work with glasses well, but I really loved the super light body and design so much I ordered the 8x even though I don't need it.

I don't ever feel like I can't use a 'lesser' bin than my Leica.
I like to try different binoculars out if there are qualities I like, that are attractive to me.

Troubador · Aug 6, 2014

Annabeth2 said:
yeah I did see the very narrow FOV in the specs, but I've had many bins with narrow fov and always able to adapt ok. I'd still give the classic Swift a shot.

No, it's not the Trinovid, but neither is my Katmai and (probably not) the Minox BL I have coming. I recently tried the 10x BL b/c I've been thinking about adding a 10x for a long time.
It didn't work with glasses well, but I really loved the super light body and design so much I ordered the 8x even though I don't need it.

I don't ever feel like I can't use a 'lesser' bin than my Leica.
I like to try different binoculars out if there are qualities I like, that are attractive to me.

Beth

Typo has a neat little Opticron BGA Classic 7x36 that is an intriguing bit of kit. If you ever get the chance to try one please do. :t:

Lee

A2GG · Aug 6, 2014

Troubador said:
Beth

Typo has a neat little Opticron BGA Classic 7x36 that is an intriguing bit of kit. If you ever get the chance to try one please do. :t:

Lee

I see that it looks just like a Swift Eaglet...nice !
The Audubon nature store actually has Opticron bins now.
I handled a Verano (I think) the last time I was there...nice stuff.
Next time I go there I'll see what else they have in Opticron...just
for fun.

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

Annabeth2 said:
yeah I did see the very narrow FOV in the specs, but I've had many bins with narrow fov and always able to adapt ok. I'd still give the classic Swift a shot.

No, it's not the Trinovid, but neither is my Katmai and (probably not) the Minox BL I have coming. I recently tried the 10x BL b/c I've been thinking about adding a 10x for a long time.
It didn't work with glasses well, but I really loved the super light body and design so much I ordered the 8x even though I don't need it.

I don't ever feel like I can't use a 'lesser' bin than my Leica.
I like to try different binoculars out if there are qualities I like, that are attractive to me.

I don't know, if you ordered the HHS on top of the Minox BL, you might be cutting into your handbag budget.

Brock

A2GG · Aug 6, 2014

brocknroller said:
I don't know, if you ordered the HHS on top of the Minox BL, you might be cutting into your handbag budget.

Brock

true ! I'm not buying the HHS ...was just sayin 'if I was lookin' it might be nice to have. I need to cut out buying both handbags and binoculars. I been doing well with not buying anymore handbags and have sold/gave away/donated some older ones recently. I didn't need the Minox in 8x, but like I said it was difficult to send the 10x back b/c it's such a nice light bino. It's the MIG version.

elkcub · Aug 6, 2014

ceasar said:
Ed,

This is a bit off topic but since you mentioned the Swift 8.5x44 HHS my wife and I visited Cape May, NJ this past May and while we were on the deck at the Sanctuary near the Lighthouse a man and a woman, both in their 60s, came by. They were accompanied by a woman guide who was using a Swarovski SLC and carrying a small scope on a tripod.

The man and the woman were each using Swift 8.5x44 HHS binoculars.

That Yellow Dot on it's prism housing is as distinctive as Leica's Red Dot!:king:

Bob

Well, you broke out of the box, so I'll comment about the HHS. It does, in fact, have 19mm ER, and at least for my four-eyed view produces little/no tunnel effect even though the AFOV is only 54.5˚. I'm not sure why the transmission is so low (67.5%), considering that Hiyoshi made it and the coatings appear quite green. Probably the prism coatings. The 804ED measures 86.1%, but also has fewer lens elements. Be that as it may, unless one is making a side-by-side comparison, the HHS brightness seems quite reasonable. The biggest issue is lateral CA, but I don't go looking for it. Nowadays, I tend to use it where I might have picked the 8x30SLC. As an aside, even with Swarobright the 8x30SLC seems quite a bit darker to me and that's possibly due to the small objective size. Mechanically, the HHS is quite robust, although not a precision mechanism like a Swaro. Mine was a gift from Alison Swift, who presented it for authoring the Audubon paper. Incidentally, she completely divested of Swift Instruments, Inc. six or more years ago, and "Hop" Swift did live to see both the HHS and 820 Audubons into production. He died 1/20/02.

Ed

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

Annabeth2 said:
true ! I'm not buying the HHS ...was just sayin 'if I was lookin' it might be nice to have. I need to cut out buying both handbags and binoculars. I been doing well with not buying anymore handbags and have sold/gave away/donated some older ones recently. I didn't need the Minox in 8x, but like I said it was difficult to send the 10x back b/c it's such a nice light bino. It's the MIG version.

I didn't think the made a "MIG" version of the BL, but they did upgrade it with ED glass. Is this the model you're talking about?

Minox BL HD

Brock

brocknroller · Aug 6, 2014

elkcub said:
Well, you broke out of the box, so I'll comment about the HHS. It does, in fact, have 19mm ER, and at least for my four-eyed view produces little/no tunnel effect even though the AFOV is only 54.5˚. I'm not sure why the transmission is so low (67.5%), considering that Hiyoshi made it and the coatings appear quite green. Probably the prism coatings. The 804ED measures 86.1%, but also has fewer lens elements. Be that as it may, unless one is making a side-by-side comparison, the HHS brightness seems quite reasonable. The biggest issue is lateral CA, but I don't go looking for it. Nowadays, I tend to use it where I might have picked the 8x30SLC. As an aside, even with Swarobright the 8x30SLC seems quite a bit darker to me and that's possibly due to the small objective size. Mechanically, the HHS is quite robust, although not a precision mechanism like a Swaro. Mine was a gift from Alison Swift, who presented it for authoring the Audubon paper. Incidentally, she completely divested of Swift Instruments, Inc. six or more years ago, and "Hop" Swift did live to see both the HHS and 820 Audubons into production. He died 1/20/02.

Ed

Holy Carp! 67.5% is really low for a FMC bin. And here we had some people questioning Arek's 75% number. The 804s are MC (well, they did make them FMC for a year or two before bringing out the 820s, I had two FMC 804s, but they had more distortion and field curvature than the 804 MCs).

The HHS might not seem dim next to the 8x30 SLC, but if you did a side by side comparison with the 820 Audubon, which was made around the same time, under low light or cloudy conditions, you should be able to see the difference. Some people can detect a 3% difference in brightness so a 20% difference should be quite noticeable under low light conditions.

I reiterate my earlier statement, Swift (whoever owns it now) needs to upgrade those prism coatings and perhaps also the AR coatings. The HHS is a Japanese-made bin, there are cheaper bins coming out of China that beat it by some margin.

Thanks for including "Hops" obit. Glad he lived to see the new Audubons, I wasn't sure from Ingraham's HHS review where he said he "designed them before his death,' but I have to wonder what he thought about that low light transmission?

You said you got the HHS from Alison for authoring "the Audubon paper." Could you elaborate?

Brock

mooreorless · Aug 6, 2014

ceasar said:
"Since Steve (mooreorless) has been a staunch advocate of the 8x30 SLC, I suggest that he lead the charge by collecting names and contact info from those on BF, CN, Optics Talk and 24hrcampfire who would like to see the return of this much beloved bin."

Only if it comes back as a 7x30 with phase coatings and with a 7.8º FOV and at least 16mm ER. There are too many 8x32s that match it or better it. Many of them cost less than it did.

Bob

I agree with all you about the front focuser, it is where it should be. Wear a hat don't squint, you see morenotless. Yes I would of liked a neu 7x30, but like Bob says a wider field of view. LCSS wanted to give me less for the Nikon 8x32LX.

flyinsquirel · Aug 7, 2014

Anyone have some insight on the Swarovski sale? Is anyone offering additional discounts on top of the 10% off?

ceasar · Aug 7, 2014

brocknroller said:
Actually, if you write, "so what," it should be followed by a question mark.

"Mock" is too strong a word, "constructive criticism" is the proper term, but I can understand how a devout cult member might not be able to tell the difference. :smoke:

I think old Humphrey died before the HHS came out, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think he'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw those poor transmission numbers and realized that his dream of having a top banana roof was never realized. From all accounts (cult members, aside), the HHS can't hold a torch to its Porro namesake.

As to the price, they could do one of two things, manufacture an upgraded model in China, which they could probably do for not much more than the original is selling for now, OR continue to make it in Japan and sell it at the second-tier price point, which more people can afford than the "mental" prices of alphas today (that last one was a mock, but I attributed that to Tim ).

If you were talking about a Porro, I could understand why you might want to leave well enough alone and just upgrade the AR coatings (that's what I would do with my 804 Audubon), but with roofs, which started life behind Porros due to their inherent "leaky" prisms, the trend is toward wider FsOV, higher transmission, more compact design, and ED glass.

I don't see the need to fight progress especially when it can be had at a relatively less expensive price today than an upgrade could at the time when the HHS was introduced back in the 20th century.

Brock, head organizer of the Movement of Progressive Optics for Swift and Pentax (MOPOSAP)

Brock,

I won't say too much more about this but I do first want to point out that I addressed my anecdote about the binoculars to Ed who owns one, still uses it on occasion and because I thought he would find it interesting.

I really don't know why that would set you off on one of your internet lectures about its merits as a binocular. Most people who have been around here long enough know what its weaknesses are.

Then you threw up a challenge to any "members" of it's "cult" (what ever that is supposed to be) to defend it and mentioned something about "fighting progress."

It's not about cults and it's not about fighting progress. I said it earlier and I will say it in a simpler fashion this time. It doesn't need defending. It is what it is and some people still use it and are happy using it because it can do the job they want it to do.

Why does that upset you? It is still a useful, practical, well designed and well made roof prism that hasn't been upgraded for what ever reasons the new owners have.

Sure, the Swift 8.5x44 HHS could be improved if the new owners of the company want to improve it. Why they haven't is their business. Meanwhile the people who use it appear to be perfectly happy with it.

Bob

Swarovski Sale? (1 Viewer)

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

porromaniac

Beth

porromaniac

Beth

Moderator

Beth

porromaniac

Beth

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

porromaniac

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread