-
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.
Swift historians (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter planetester
- Start date
stabor
Well-known member
elkcub said:
I can't do this easily, but I followed Bosun's instructions from yesterday. Find the binocular hinge and locate the cap at the objective end. Unscrew that, and deep inside you'll see a groove. Get a long, thin screwdriver and insert it there. This adjusts the stop on the "piston" to which the eyepieces are attached. If you turn it too far the piston comes out of the shaft and then dust can get in, or maybe the whole thing comes apart. When you've got it right, replace the cap.
No guarantees, but I took them out at lunch and they seem happy.
From Stabor's comments, maybe the Saratogas aren't meant to close focus but the adjustment seemed to have worked. The only thing is that the screw is loosened and may work its' way out with time. I did wonder about trying to put some loctite on the thread with some sort of long spill, maybe a drinking straw?
I adjusted it to a guestimated 15 ft.
My older pair of Saratogas already focus down to a guestimated 15ft. When I get time, I'll actually measure the distance & let you know. I'll also see what I can do with a camera but illumination inside the shaft may be difficult. I'll try it anyway & let you know how I got on.
I adjusted it to a guestimated 15 ft.
My older pair of Saratogas already focus down to a guestimated 15ft. When I get time, I'll actually measure the distance & let you know. I'll also see what I can do with a camera but illumination inside the shaft may be difficult. I'll try it anyway & let you know how I got on.
Last edited:
Please note that I'm not a binocular technician and I am not advising any body else to follow my lead in case there are unforseen consequences. I merely reported something which I tried. I was playing with an old pair of binoculars, bought cheaply on e bay and would not dream of gambling with my skills on a modern expensive pair.
Simon S
Well-known member
I to own a pair of Saratoga's. They are very bright and have a super wide field of view, much greater than the Audubon range. The prisms are however BK7 and not BAK4 as in the Audubons. You would never know when looking through them though.
If you want a great pair of bins for around £40 you know where to look!
If you want a great pair of bins for around £40 you know where to look!
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Simon,
There are several Saratoga models listed above, and from what I gather everyone likes them. The use of BK7 glass is not as detrimental as it's made out to be, and you may be one of the few clear thinkers who base their conclusions on what they actually see rather than what others say. Outstanding! :t:
Blue skies,
Ed
Simon S
Well-known member
Thanks for your kind comments elkcub. I have the MKII versions and although heavy and not hermetically sealed, are a treat to use. The huge field of view amazed a friend of mine with his roofs.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
It's very interesting but not entirely accurate, IMO. For one thing, I'm fairly certain that Barium Crown (BaK-4) is more expensive that commmon crown (BK7); a number of reputable books say so. Decomposing the 6-digit glass numbers, there is a small tradeoff between refractive index and absolute dispersion of the two types, but I forget how that produces more uniform illumination with BaK-4 prisms. It has something to do with the prism geometry causing more vignetting with BK7. The thing that tweeks my curiosity, though, is the presence of greater CA in the optical path with BaK-4 (about 25% in terms of absolute dispersion, I figure), and what percentage difference that might make taking into account the CA induced by the objective and eyepiece. I've yet to find a good treatise on how all the parts interact to produce the total aberrations presented to the eye. One thing's for sure, though, optical design is more complicated than might be imagined.
Blue skies,
Ed
Blue skies,
Ed
I have now acquired 4 pairs of swift porroprism binoculars. The 2 Saratoga's described above, a pair of 8X42 Saratoga's from the 1990's and an old (1960's) 10x50 Swift Newport.
My experience with the Saratoga's is surprising. In my view, the oldest binoculars have the best optics!!! Colors are brighter and images are sharper. Couple this with Bill W's comments about tougher construction and "bomb proof" collimation on the older binoculars and the conclusion is clear. Buy the earliest Swift binoculars you can. You will save a huge amount of money ( my oldest ones cost the equivalent of 50 and 30 USD respectively) and you will get better glasses.
This is not based on scientific testing, but on my own experience of comparing them side by side in ordinary use.
My experience with the Saratoga's is surprising. In my view, the oldest binoculars have the best optics!!! Colors are brighter and images are sharper. Couple this with Bill W's comments about tougher construction and "bomb proof" collimation on the older binoculars and the conclusion is clear. Buy the earliest Swift binoculars you can. You will save a huge amount of money ( my oldest ones cost the equivalent of 50 and 30 USD respectively) and you will get better glasses.
This is not based on scientific testing, but on my own experience of comparing them side by side in ordinary use.
Last edited:
chartwell99
Well-known member
Very interesting observation. I have a Swift Neptune Mk I 7 x 35 and in my opinion it is noticeable sharper and crisper than any other Swift binocular I have used, including the same configuration Neptune Mk II and the next to latest model 8.5 x 44 Audubon. I wonder whether Elkcub would agree?
I have 2 main uses for binoculars. I love the sea and like to watch ships & boats, either from the shore or from cruise ships on which I spend many of my vacations.
I live inland on top of a hill and have a conservatory which looks out over the valley. There is a lot to see from my high vantage point. Recently, I have started to notice the birds and there seem to be many different varieties visible from here.
I've never been to a horse race, although I have been saying for many years that it might be interesting.
Incidentally, my oldest Saratogas have the square vignetting which previous posts suggest indicates cheaper BAK 7 prisms but the newer (1990's pair) has circular exit pupils suggesting that it has BAK 4 prisms. However, I still think the older ones have superior optical performance.
I think that the Newport 10x50's give the best, most detailed image but they are very heavy indeed and I would not want to carry them around all day.
I live inland on top of a hill and have a conservatory which looks out over the valley. There is a lot to see from my high vantage point. Recently, I have started to notice the birds and there seem to be many different varieties visible from here.
I've never been to a horse race, although I have been saying for many years that it might be interesting.
Incidentally, my oldest Saratogas have the square vignetting which previous posts suggest indicates cheaper BAK 7 prisms but the newer (1990's pair) has circular exit pupils suggesting that it has BAK 4 prisms. However, I still think the older ones have superior optical performance.
I think that the Newport 10x50's give the best, most detailed image but they are very heavy indeed and I would not want to carry them around all day.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Well, I deleted my earlier post because I remembered having a Model 766 7x35 Holiday Mark II. It was made in 1978 by Hiyoshi Kogaku and has an enormous 600 ft. fov. It also uses BK7 glass and displays diamond shaped exit pupils. The Model 802 7x35 Neptune Mark II of that vintage is considerably lighter but with a 420 ft. fov. I take it that's Chartwell's Mark II Neptune, which probably uses BaK-4. Please confirm, and also when was it made (first two digits of serial #)?
I don't use the Holiday for anything much because it has such bad prism reflections, but it does give me a chance to compare BK7 glass with a Model 823 7x50 Commodore Mk II of the same period that has BaK-4.
More when I have an opinion ...
Blue skies,
Ed
I don't use the Holiday for anything much because it has such bad prism reflections, but it does give me a chance to compare BK7 glass with a Model 823 7x50 Commodore Mk II of the same period that has BaK-4.
More when I have an opinion ...
Blue skies,
Ed
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
That was fun, and I learned a lot.
I compared the 7x35 (600') Holiday with the 7x50 (525') Commodore, both made in 1978 and marked fully coated optics. I also included the standard and ED versions of the 8.5x44 (430') 804 Audubon, which were made in the mid 1990s with fully multi-coated optics.
Holger Merlitz' rank order method of comparison makes the most sense to me (see .pdf file). Ratings are averaged for tied scores. The column totals should always equal 10 (i.e., 1+2+3+4) in this case, and the row totals become the final "score" for the binocular, weighting the importance of each of the seven factors equally.
I found the dead-center sharpness to be equal except for the 804ED, which is in a class of its own for this and color contrast. I define lateral sharpness as ±20 deg from center (sweet spot) within the apparent field, and here I felt that the older models were not quite as good. This judgement could be argued. Color contrast was also lower for the older models, in general, and vignetting was a super big problem for the Holiday as well as prism mirror reflections. The Commodore had very slight reflections at the lateral edges.
So, all in all, I'd pretty much favor the newer Swift binoculars, which are also ergonomically superior. The older models might get a nod for sheer bulk and durability.
With regard to the use of BK7 glass, it seems to me this was done with the Holiday to keep down lateral CA, which would be quite large over such a wide field. This was quite a success as it was minimal even at the edges. On the other hand, this came at the expense of severe vignetting, which is evident at all times and particularly when one looks at a clear sky. The edge reflections from the prism may also result from BK7, but I don't understand the geometry. I'd never buy a binocular like this for anything but my Swift collection and experimentation. Now I know what bad vignetting does to the view.
Do any of you have similar experiences with BK7 glass?
Blue skies,
Ed
I compared the 7x35 (600') Holiday with the 7x50 (525') Commodore, both made in 1978 and marked fully coated optics. I also included the standard and ED versions of the 8.5x44 (430') 804 Audubon, which were made in the mid 1990s with fully multi-coated optics.
Holger Merlitz' rank order method of comparison makes the most sense to me (see .pdf file). Ratings are averaged for tied scores. The column totals should always equal 10 (i.e., 1+2+3+4) in this case, and the row totals become the final "score" for the binocular, weighting the importance of each of the seven factors equally.
I found the dead-center sharpness to be equal except for the 804ED, which is in a class of its own for this and color contrast. I define lateral sharpness as ±20 deg from center (sweet spot) within the apparent field, and here I felt that the older models were not quite as good. This judgement could be argued. Color contrast was also lower for the older models, in general, and vignetting was a super big problem for the Holiday as well as prism mirror reflections. The Commodore had very slight reflections at the lateral edges.
So, all in all, I'd pretty much favor the newer Swift binoculars, which are also ergonomically superior. The older models might get a nod for sheer bulk and durability.
With regard to the use of BK7 glass, it seems to me this was done with the Holiday to keep down lateral CA, which would be quite large over such a wide field. This was quite a success as it was minimal even at the edges. On the other hand, this came at the expense of severe vignetting, which is evident at all times and particularly when one looks at a clear sky. The edge reflections from the prism may also result from BK7, but I don't understand the geometry. I'd never buy a binocular like this for anything but my Swift collection and experimentation. Now I know what bad vignetting does to the view.
Do any of you have similar experiences with BK7 glass?
Blue skies,
Ed
Last edited:
My experience also suggests that the Saratoga MkII binoculars from 1976 are optically inferior to that from 1990 and are also not as easy to use because of their bulk. However the pair from 1970 is virtually the same size as that from 1990 and the image appears to me to be brighter with more vivid colours than either of the newer pairs, although that is only my non expert oppinion. Bill W's comments about the toughness of the earliest models seems to be another reason to prefer the older ones. All are, however extremely good and all were bought very cheaply (I'm a real cheap skate!) in comparison to brand new models. I think that the fact that all three are the same model but from different eras provides a good basis for comparison.
Audubons are probably superior but I have been looking out for a pair at the right price and they always seem to fetch much higher prices and I get outbid.
The 10x50 Swift Newport binoculars from 1967 seems to be optically better then any of the Saratogas but are too heavy for carrying around for long periods.
Audubons are probably superior but I have been looking out for a pair at the right price and they always seem to fetch much higher prices and I get outbid.
The 10x50 Swift Newport binoculars from 1967 seems to be optically better then any of the Saratogas but are too heavy for carrying around for long periods.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I haven't seen many (any!) Type 4 804 Audubons on eBay of late, which is disconcerting. I wonder where they went? Of the ones you missed, how much did they go for? My impression was that an HR/5 in great condition would fetch about $200, and an 805R about $150. But that was some time ago. An 804ED can go for $350-400 in the US, but rarely shows up.
There's nothing wrong with being frugal, and I suspect that you get much more value per dollar that I do.
Blue skies,
Ed
Similar threads
