Newly designed Audubons? (1 Viewer)

I noticed that the pebbly textured armoring looks a lot like the Audubon roof's and so does the two-piece body/barrel construction.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/external/files/products/bin-sw-820ed-m.jpg

http://www.eagleoptics.com/external/files/products/bin-sw-828-m.jpg

Except that in the new porros, the barrels have the same armoring as the body (a common minor complaint about the roof version, which does not).

Note the one-piece construction on the original 820:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images345x345/218842.jpg

Also note only a slight color difference between the non-ED glass and ED models. The prior non-ED model was an ugly aquamarine, and the ED version, an elegant black.

The other thing that's absent (unless it's underneath) is the orange or red plastic bubble logo. I mean, how are my fellow birders going to know that I'm using a Swift Audubon rather than a Minolta Activa or Garrett Genesis? I lost my "cachet" w/out the "dot".

Re: Kevin's remark about $150 being a steep mark up for the ED glass, check the prices on the old model 820, same difference.

15 years ago, the difference btwn non-ED and ED porros was $100, so not much of an increase in 2011, considering the cost of living has gone up considerably during that time.

But if want to see a steep mark up for ED glass look at the Pentax SP vs. ED model at the same store.

Pentax DCF SP 8x43 Binocular $549

Pentax DCF ED 8x43 Binocular $899

I've seen other stores selling the ED version for $999.

Same specs, same design, the only difference is the ED glass.

Plus, they both have a narrowish 6.3* FOV, which is more commonly found in lower priced models than in a company's top o' the line bins. Even Pentax's 8x36 NV model has a slightly wider FOV (6.5*). And the edges are good on that model, I tried it.

Can you say "Rip Off" boys and girls?

Mister R.

Another family resemblance? The Falmouth.
http://www.claritas-online.co.uk/products/general_purpose_binoculars.htm

Holger Merlitz makes some interesting comments on these if you follow the link.

It would be worthwhile for Swift to send Holger a sample for evaluation. In fact, I would encourage them to do so asap. :brains:
Ed

I thought I'd seen that enclosure before

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/loava8x45.html

Kunming's United-Optics as a member of their BW7 series

Click to expand...

http://www.united-optics.com/Produc...Outdoor_Binoculars/BW7_Series/BW7 Series.html

Coming first to a rather confusing part: Just as was the case with the 10x50, the technical specifications of this binocular are incorrect. I have measured an exit pupil of 5mm instead of 5.6mm as one would expect to find with an 8x45. This would imply an effective 8x40 and not 8x45 binocular. Additionally, the field of view is smaller than specified: The imprint on the binocular is reading 145m/1000m, or 8.3 degs true field of view, but my measurement delivered a value around 7.5 degs, somewhere between 130m and 135m per 1000m. It has been speculated that, perhaps, the magnification of this binocular might be closer to 9x than to 8x, which would explain the reduced exit pupil. I did the comparison with both the Docter 8x42 B/CF and the Nikon 8x30 EII, using one eye to look through the LOAVA and the other eye to look through the other binocular, to compare the sizes of objects in both images. For comparison, and to evaluate the accuracy of the method, I also used another binocular with 7x power. I found a clearly visible difference between the three 8x binoculars and the 7x, but no significant differences among the 8x glasses. I therefore imply that the LOAVA has in fact got 8x power and is effectively a 8x40 binocular.

Click to expand...

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/chinese8x40.html

The LOAVA 8x45 has been presented in a previous report on this web-site. It is a member of the United Optics BW7 line which also contains 7x50, 10x50, 12x50 and 16x50 models. Compared with the BW3, this binocular is rather compact and mobile, though it appears less robust and has got some issues with its focusing unit (to be discussed later). The technical specifications for this binocular are incorrect: Its field of view is not 8.0 degs. as specified, but, according to my own measurement, 7.6 degs., and the exit pupil is not 5.6mm, but roughly 5.0mm. The latter number implies that there must exist a serious vignetting of the light cone which effectively turns this binocular into a 8x40. I have observed a similar reduction of the exit pupil with the BW7 10x50 as well. The twist up eye-caps can lock at any height which makes them very comfortable to use.

Click to expand...

See the review for some of the other issues he found.

The 8x45 has got one problem in common with the 10x50 version: When focusing, the ocular bridge sometimes becomes tilted, so that both oculars do not move simultaneously and do not maintain the same distance to the image plane. This is reducing the focusing accuracy and forces the user to turn the diopter setting in order to get both eyes back into focus. Here, Kunming should improve the precision of the mechanical engineering to assure a precise focusing.

Click to expand...

Ah, the wobbly bridge. This isn't the case with all Chinese porros e.g. Yosemites seem to do fine.

One hopes the Swifts don't suffer from the same problems: they may just share the same enclosure (and perhaps maker). Or they may share the same design and design problems. But it gives a clue for what to check out if you handle a pair.

But see the next post ... they may be similar but not the same bins.

Look carefully. Swift on the left, LOAVA on the right.

Yesterday I spoke with a gentlemen at Swift Sport Optics in Colorado. Admittedly, he didn't claim to be an optics expert. What he did claim was that the origin of these binoculars was Japan. I asked him if he could tell me who made them. He politely declined, but he was adamant that they were manufactured in Japan. He said he wasn't in on the design, but also said the "generic" look was a financial decision, stating that the cost of a custom skin couldn't be justified.

As for performance, he offered few details but he thought they compared very favorable to the 820's.

Ted

typo said:

Another family resemblance? The Falmouth.
http://www.claritas-online.co.uk/products/general_purpose_binoculars.htm

Holger Merlitz makes some interesting comments on these if you follow the link.

Click to expand...

What caught my eye were those 25-year-old Hilkinson 8x30 Caithness Porros. I no longer have my old Swift catalog, but Swift had a model that looked very similar.

Too bad old porros can't be updated with the latest coatings, if they could, I'd probably never buy another roof!

henry link said:

Look carefully. Swift on the left, LOAVA on the right.

Click to expand...

You're right they're not quite the same.

brocknroller said:

What caught my eye were those 25-year-old Hilkinson 8x30 Caithness Porros. I no longer have my old Swift catalog, but Swift had a model that looked very similar.

Too bad old porros can't be updated with the latest coatings, if they could, I'd probably never buy another roof!

Click to expand...

The one that really looks like a Swift is the 2nd one down. The 8 x 30 Porro Prism as shown. With 8.2 degree FOV.

The Swift would be the 763 Ultra Lite - Rubber Armored 8 x 32 ZWCF. It is pictured in the Swift Brochure with the Acorn Woodpecker on it. 19.6 ounces. 15mm ER. FMC on all air to glass surfaces. 436' FOV. 4 lens ocular system which gave a "highly resolved flat field." It came with a "handsome gift box."

I almost bought one. Got the 8 x 30 EII instead. Prices were about the same. Note that Hilkinson also designates theirs as a ZWCF. Both made in Japan.

Bob

For me, part of the cachet of the Audubon was that it was a B-body porro, hence my earlier comment about this one being a Z-body. As for the housing, I've no reason to doubt that it is Japanese just from its appearence. It seems to me that the Chinese housings that others have referenced are copied from older Japanese designs, for example that used on the B&L Discoverer porro that I mentioned before. I'll attach a pic if I can find one

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

For me, part of the cachet of the Audubon was that it was a B-body porro, hence my earlier comment about this one being a Z-body. As for the housing, I've no reason to doubt that it is Japanese just from its appearence. It seems to me that the Chinese housings that others have referenced are copied from older Japanese designs, for example that used on the B&L Discoverer porro that I mentioned before. I'll attach a pic if I can find one

--AP

Click to expand...

You nailed it, Alexis! Stretch some pebbly textured Swift HHS "skin" over the B & L, and you got yourself a new 820 Audubon (I think they should have changed the # to avoid confusion with the older model).

Did you try the old B & L Discoverer? If so, was the focuser bridge sturdy?

ceasar said:

The one that really looks like a Swift is the 2nd one down. The 8 x 30 Porro Prism as shown. With 8.2 degree FOV.

The Swift would be the 763 Ultra Lite - Rubber Armored 8 x 32 ZWCF. It is pictured in the Swift Brochure with the Acorn Woodpecker on it. 19.6 ounces. 15mm ER. FMC on all air to glass surfaces. 436' FOV. 4 lens ocular system which gave a "highly resolved flat field." It came with a "handsome gift box."

I almost bought one. Got the 8 x 30 EII instead. Prices were about the same. Note that Hilkinson also designates theirs as a ZWCF. Both made in Japan.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, the Hilkinson 8x30 Porro housing also looks similar to the Swift 7x35 ZWCF Aerolite (except the Hilkinson's eyecups are uncircumcised :

http://www.opticsplanet.net/swift-7x35-zwcf-aerolite-binoculars.html

brocknroller said:

You nailed it, Alexis! ...
Did you try the old B & L Discoverer? If so, was the focuser bridge sturdy?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not arguing that they're the same bin, just that this sort of housing has been around for a while.

Yes, I've got a B&L 8x42 Discoverer porro in the closet--bought on close-out for ~$70 I think. The focusing bridge/yoke is sturdy, the very wide (~420ft) view is excellent in the center but deteriorates at the edge (much like the Nikon Action and Action EX models) and it has excellent eye-relief, but the coatings are not top-notch so the contrast is not the best against the light. Haven't had them out in a while, but I seem to recall that the coatings in the left and right sides of my unit are not the same, and if recollection serves, the prism face isn't coated on one side but is on the other. All in all, I consider the performance similar to the Nikon Action EX, maybe a bit better.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

Well, I'm not arguing that they're the same bin, just that this sort of housing has been around for a while.

Yes, I've got a B&L 8x42 Discoverer porro in the closet--bought on close-out for ~$70 I think. The focusing bridge/yoke is sturdy, the very wide (~420ft) view is excellent in the center but deteriorates at the edge (much like the Nikon Action and Action EX models) and it has excellent eye-relief, but the coatings are not top-notch so the contrast is not the best against the light. Haven't had them out in a while, but I seem to recall that the coatings in the left and right sides of my unit are not the same, and if recollection serves, the prism face isn't coated on one side but is on the other. All in all, I consider the performance similar to the Nikon Action EX, maybe a bit better.

--AP

Click to expand...

Alexis,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I would fully expect the Swift Audubon optics to be totally different than the B & Ls and the same as the original 820s, which were very sharp and bright with an ample sweet spot.

I had no gripes about the optics, but I could not get on with the eyecups and the protruding focuser, which made it impossible for me to get my eyes close enough to the EPs to see the entire FOV without incurring a severe case of binoculitis, which left me looking like Spanky's dog, Pete the Pup:

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/image/pete2.jpg

If Swift "borrowed" the focuser bridge as well as the body design from the B & Ls (which presumably were designed by Bushnell, but manufactured by Jean and Joan and-a who knows who?) but kept the optics from the original 820, I will buy a pair when the Dow hits 11,500 again.

I had an 820 non-ED that I really liked, until the view thru binos became better using the specs than without them (I have reached ol' fart status). The er on the Swift is far short of the advertised 17mm.....more like 11 or 12, which doesn't get the full fov with the glasses on. So I traded it to a friend of mine for a riflescope. If the new ones really do have 16mm er, I'll hafta take a look.....

spyglass said:

I had an 820 non-ED that I really liked, until the view thru binos became better using the specs than without them (I have reached ol' fart status). The er on the Swift is far short of the advertised 17mm.....more like 11 or 12, which doesn't get the full fov with the glasses on. So I traded it to a friend of mine for a riflescope. If the new ones really do have 16mm er, I'll hafta take a look.....

Click to expand...

When the 820 first came out, Swift's ads listed 18mm ER and the description read something like "great for eyeglass wearers". Perhaps users with flat faces like bulldogs and very mild prescription glasses with polycarbonate lenses.

Total BS. Now they list 16mm for the ER and there's no mention about their benefit for eyeglass wearers.

You're correct about the usable ER. When you add in the lens recession and those thick, hard twist up eyecups, you are left with only 11 or 12mm of usable ER for eyeglass wearers on the original 820s.

The eyecup design on the new model looks better, but there is still the lens recession to consider. So wait for the reviews before buying a pair if you need to use eyeglasses with them.

A sure thing would be to find a nice price on a refurb 8x42 HGL (if you are not "allergic" to "rolling ball"). They have ample ER for glasses, though you trade off a degree FOV vs. the Audubon, and they will show more CA than the porros. But the views are otherwise spectacular ("designed to be the best roof prism binoculars in the known universe" .

I prefer the view through the original Venturers (better contrast, truer colors, though less apparent brightness), but they are too heavy to keep lifting for my "ol' fart" arms. And, unfortunately, I am "allergic" to "rolling ball" (gives me the hebegebees).

I like the 10x42 HG's better than the 8x42s since they have a wider AFOV (60* vs. 56*), and they are the "Former Pinnacle in Nikon Technology" .

If Nikon would have updated the "Premiers" with ED glass and dielectric coatings instead of yet another name change, and kept the cost within $300-$400 of the HGL's current price, for $1399 they'd be flying off the shelves, considering what the Big Three are asking for their bins these days.

Other than "rolling ball" which some people see (I gather more don't), the only real black marks against the HGs are their lower light transmission and higher than average CA.

Add dielectric coatings (can't cost that much if it didn't add cost to the Monarch IIIs) and ED glass and bingo! Nikon will have two lines of bins that can compete against the Big Boyz. The Premier ED would also offer an alternative for buyers who don't like open bridge roofs but still want the "Nikon view".

Are You Mr Radish?..I saw You in a movie ,I think..or maybe was real life..,about some wonderful life,or something... I might be wrong...anyway

Nikon did change the LX series(and also changed the EDG...Closing the bridge..didnt they..I guess those who doesnt like open bridge are actually abale to get a nikon view afterall). I agree that the LXL was too nice and instrument and too expensive to have such bad CA.With the eruption of cheap ED glass from china,Nikon should have sent a pair of ED objectives and a DYS kit,for LXL owners to upgrade their binos.. sort of a recall..And what is with the price of the new Audubon ED..?...I am glad they choose the "GENERIC" look to save some money..otherwise they would have been in the 1 K MARK!
Well,too bad,because I had a good design almost ready to sell to Swift (thats why im bitter).

Mr. Alí (oli)

Hi,
Does anyone have first hand experience with the new 820's ED and or the regular 820? How do they compare to the previous "classic" models in terms of optics and build quality?

Thanks

elaine7 said:

Hi,
Does anyone have first hand experience with the new 820's ED and or the regular 820? How do they compare to the previous "classic" models in terms of optics and build quality?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi, I am new to this forum and not a birdwatcher. I happened to step in here because I just received an 820ED and noticed a different look from what was advertised, so I started searching for news about it.
It seems my 820ED is the latest model. So here are my first impressions.

Can't compare to other binoculars (apart from an older Nikon 10x25 Sportstar); but the image is stunning, very clear, defined, nice neutral colours, and with a distinctive tri-dimensional effect. Don't know if top expensive roof prism binoculars can be better, but it's hard to think so.
Grip is very nice. In my view, the diopter adjustment could be made better by just having adjustment number marks in order to setup quicker. Oculars are 3-positions twist-up, very large though, I guess they will easily suffer backlighting. The bridge seems OK to me, but again I have no terms for comparison.
The only shortcoming I can see of is the following: the focousing mechanism is not what I would call 'smooth' and its resistance changes irregularly while turning the (comfortably large) ring.
The big plus I can detect comparing to pictures of the older model is in that the rubber armouring, now having separate parts for the cylindrical front "tubes", does not have the protruding junction edge (don't know how to define it better in English) that shows very clearly in the pictures of the former model. Plus, I appreciate the new "plain" look compared to the former gimmicky one. I also guess that dropping the bright badge button, the body is now less visible by your shy viewing subjects.
Ah, it's made in Japan.

At last! Welcome to the forum. Your comments are much appreciated. I envy the view, and hope the focuser smooths out with use.
Ron