[ChadHahn]

I bought a pair of 1993, I guess from the serial number, HR/5s yesterday. A lady had them on craigslist. I had been trying to see them for about a month and yesterday I was finally able to get them.

Today I was comparing them to my 820s. Optically they are about the same but structurally I think I like the 804s better. Even though they just say Multi Coated, I think that they might be FMC because the lenses look the same as my 820s.

I guess I'm now a Audubon collector.

Chad

[JohnJos]

Excellent. They look superb. I have a pair of HR/5s I bought off of eBay and had serviced by Nicolas Crista. It is a great instrument. I love the view through it. Mine is 1991 vintage. I like the HR/5 better that the 804 Mark 2 (Type IIb) I had previously. Enjoy your new Audubons.

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by ChadHahn

I bought a pair of 1993, I guess from the serial number, HR/5s yesterday. A lady had them on craigslist. I had been trying to see them for about a month and yesterday I was finally able to get them.

Today I was comparing them to my 820s. Optically they are about the same but structurally I think I like the 804s better. Even though they just say Multi Coated, I think that they might be FMC because the lenses look the same as my 820s.

I guess I'm now a Audubon collector.

Chad

Nice one! Yes, you are an official collector now. I do believe they are fully multi-coated even though the cover plate says otherwise. Mine look identical, but are dated two years later.

Enjoy the view,
Ed

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by JohnJos

Excellent. They look superb. I have a pair of HR/5s I bought off of eBay and had serviced by Nicolas Crista. It is a great instrument. I love the view through it. Mine is 1991 vintage. I like the HR/5 better that the 804 Mark 2 (Type IIb) I had previously. Enjoy your new Audubons.

John,

Would you say your 1991 model is really MC or FMC?

Ed

[JohnJos]

Originally Posted by elkcub

John,

Would you say your 1991 model is really MC or FMC?

Ed

Ed,

I believe they are FMC. I see a green & purple reflection off of the objective lenses.

I sent them into Nicolas Crista because at least one of the prisms was loose. Mr. Crista re-cemented the prisms and serviced the entire instrument. He also replaced the prism covers. I had not asked him to do that but the originals were a bit scratched up and one had a dent in it (the probable cause of the loose prism). The originals were the same as Chad shows in this photos. I think I have some photos somewhere. But they said "Multi-coated Optics" on the left cover [Type 4b (1) on page 17 of your history]. Mr. Crista replaced them with the version that is labeled "HR/5 Fully Multi-coated" on the left cover [Type 4b (2)]. I don't know why he did made that switch. I had not asked him to cosmetically improve the instrument, just to fix the optics. I'm not complaining about it and I'm sure he did it to make the binocular look as good and new as he could, which is very much appreciated. He may have inspected the instrument and determined that it indeed had FMC lens and decided to use the FMC version prism covers when he overhauled the bin. I have not asked him. But he did a stupendous job and they are really wonderful to use in all respects. I'll provide photos when I have a few minutes to take them.

[rmcconachy]

I wonder if the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 Model 804 and its bigger sibling, the Swift Audubon 10x50 Model 826 (sometimes labeled "Kestrel"), moved from MC to FMC at different times? I have two Model 826 binoculars made in 1993. Looking at both binoculars under a bright white light I get white, green and purple reflections off the eye lenses but only white and green reflections off the objective lenses, different compared to John's 1991 Model 804. I'll have to look at the 1999 Model 804 I gave my father to see what reflections their lenses display when held up to a light.

[JohnJos]

Originally Posted by rmcconachy

Looking at both binoculars under a bright white light I get white, green and purple reflections off the eye lenses but only white and green reflections off the objective lenses, different compared to John's 1991 Model 804.

I get green and purple reflections on both the objectives and the oculars. I should have time this afternoon to take and post a few photos.

[z-ben]

Originally Posted by JohnJos

I get green and purple reflections on both the objectives and the oculars. I should have time this afternoon to take and post a few photos.

I have looked thru both FMC and MC OPTICS at the same thing and could not spot the difference can anyone tell me what the difference should be or if this was just a marketing ploy? By the way i am not knocking either and would not swap these for anything as they suit me nicely.

[henry link]

Here's a photo of the reflections of a light bulb returned from the front end of a FMC binocular, a Nikon 10x35 EII. The Swift Audubons should look similar. The two small green reflections come from the front and back surfaces of the cemented doublet objective. The tiny colorless reflection between them is the cementing between the elements. The large blue/green reflection at the bottom is the front surface of the Porro prism. You have to angle the binocular just so to bring it into view. Some internal surfaces might show other colors, most likely magenta or orange. If the binoculars are not fully multi-coated the back objective surface and the prism surface reflections will probably be a brighter blue/purple color indicating single layer coating or worse a very bright white indicating no coating at all. I've seen some so called FMC binoculars with no coating on the prisms.

Depending on the quality of the coating and how many glass surfaces are involved FMC will increase the light transmission between about 5% and 20% over MC on only the exterior surfaces. I would expect the FMC Audubons, which have a total of 12 surfaces and don't use the most advanced multi-coating to have somewhere between maybe 6% and 10% higher transmission over the MC Audubons.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by ChadHahn

I bought a pair of 1993, I guess from the serial number, HR/5s yesterday. A lady had them on craigslist. I had been trying to see them for about a month and yesterday I was finally able to get them.

Today I was comparing them to my 820s. Optically they are about the same but structurally I think I like the 804s better. Even though they just say Multi Coated, I think that they might be FMC because the lenses look the same as my 820s.

I guess I'm now a Audubon collector.

Chad

Chad,

I had two pairs of 804 H/R5 FMC Audubons, and both said "Fully-Multicoated" on the top where yours say "Multicoated". I still have a multicoated pair of 804s.

Big difference in the coatings. The MC pair has a slight green cast and is not as bright as the FMC samples.

However, it has less distortion at the edges and less pincushion. Swift got it right with the MC version, they just needed to update the coatings, not sure why they messed with the EPs on the FMC version. Lost edge performance and low distortion to gain a bit higher resolution and greater brightness and more color neutral images.

I also tried the 804 ED, and it was the same as the FMC version in this regard, more distortion. In fact, it had the smallest sweet spot of the four samples.

Attached is a photo of the FMC model, however, apparently my photographer wasn't paying close attention to the details and the strap partially hid the FMC lettering, but you can just about see the letters ULLY MUL through the loop in the strap from FULLY MULTICOATED on the left side.

The FMC 804 Audubons was the sharpest bin I've ever looked through, sharper than the EL I recently tried, but I couldn't live with the distortions (edge and excessive pincushion).

It also didn't handle stray light as well as the older MC version, which is odd, you'd think it would be just the opposite.

The new owners of the two FMC versions seem happy with them. I have a low tolerance for distortions. Too distracting.

If Swift had stuck with the original EP design and just added FMCs, I would have been set for life with a full sized bin.

But as it is, I might spend the rest of my life searching for a bin with as low distortion as my 804 MC and as sharp and bright views as the FMC version.

The EL comes the closest in this regard (at considerably more cost I might add), but no cigar. They don't have that impressive 3-D effect that makes birds pop out from the bushes like the Audubons do.

Also, the FMC had a one piece Swift rain guard, the MC has individual caps for each EP.

The FMC version had a soft case, the MC has a hard, leather case but my first MC had a soft case (had two of the MC version too, both were equally good).

However, it's possible that Swift might have updated the coatings on your sample without changing the lettering as they transitioned to the FMC version.

If there are no white reflections off the objectives and the images seem nearly as bright as the 820s in low light and have no green cast, they could be FMC.

[ChadHahn]

As you may be able to see in my first picture mine has the one piece rain guard. However, I don't know if it was purchased at the same time as the binoculars. Mine does have the soft case though.

Looking at it under fluorescent light (if that makes a difference) I see three reflections of the light bulb. The first and third ones are a greenish blue and the middle one is small and white. I don't know if this picture captures that.

I got my 820s out of the car and looked at them in the same light. The reflection looks the same.

How can you tell which eyepieces a binocular has?

Chad

[henry link]

Chad,

Try tilting the binoculars to bring the reflection of the light bulb from the prism into view. If it's green or a deep magenta they're probably fully multi-coated. If it's a brighter purple they're "multi-coated", meaning some surfaces are multi-coated and some single layer coated. I think the reflection colors will show better if you underexpose the photo like mine.

It's also possible that some internal eyepiece elements are not multi-coated. Try tilting the eyepiece to reveal the reflections from the internal surfaces and look for the same colors. I have a Nikon 7x35 E that is multi-coated all the way through except, strangely, for one internal eyepiece element.

Brock,

Any sort of green reflection indicates multi-coating, but not the quality of the coating. Darker is better. A white reflection indicates no coating at all, or if it's very dim like the small middle reflections in Chad and my photos it comes from the cement between two elements. Coating isn't needed on surfaces that are cemented because, unlike air, the refractive index of the cement nearly matches the glass.

Henry

Edit: Here's a photo that shows typical differences between multi-coating and single layer coating. Colors in the photo are not completely accurate. The binocular on the left is an old Nikon 8x30 E with single layer coating compared to an 8x30 EII with multi-coating, same objective and prism in both. The reflection at the bottom is from the prism. Notice that it's not only more purple/pink in the old binocular but also much brighter indicating lower light transmission. A "multi-coated" binocular might look like a combination of these two with green reflections coming from the objective surfaces and a bright purple reflection coming from the prism.

[JohnJos]

Here are photos of my HR/5.

#1 & #2 - Under compact fluorescent light bulb.

#3 - Under two fluorescent tube light bulbs.


By comparison, my Nikon 8x32 SE.

#4 - Under compact fluorescent light bulb.

Not exactly sure what to make of them. I think this indicates a MC HR/5.

[henry link]

John,

I would agree, MC not FMC. The reflection from the prism (large bright reflection at the bottom) in #3 is too bright compared to the other reflections to be multi-coating. The green and magenta reflections from the front and back of the objective appear to be multi-coating.

Henry

[JohnJos]

Originally Posted by henry link

John,

I would agree, MC not FMC. The reflection from the prism (large bright reflection at the bottom) in #3 is too bright compared to the other reflections to be multi-coating. The green and magenta reflections from the front and back of the objective appear to be multi-coating.

Henry

Thanks Henry, that is congruent with their original markings. Nicolas must have just put on the only available undamaged prism covers he had which are the FMC version.

And does that bright white reflection in the third photo indicate uncoated prisms?

[ChadHahn]

John, maybe we should exchange prism covers :) It looks like mine are FMC, but marked Multi Coated and yours are Multi Coated and marked FMC.

Chad

[henry link]

Originally Posted by JohnJos

And does that bright white reflection in the third photo indicate uncoated prisms?

I don't think so. It looks a bit purple and probably not bright enough to be uncoated glass. It's easier to tell when you look at the actual reflections rather than photos of them.

[JohnJos]

Thanks Henry. It would be unusal for these to have uncoated prisms.

Chad, interesting thought; but I would have no idea of how to remove them. Plus, they provide an excellent view so I would not want to mess around with them in any way.

[ChadHahn]

Yeah, it probably wasn't a good idea.

Chad

[JohnJos]

Originally Posted by ChadHahn

Yeah, it probably wasn't a good idea.

Chad

Not necessarily. Actually I would rather my bins have prism covers that are 'correct' for the model and construction that they are. But, as I don't intend on selling them, they are fine the way they are and it doesn't matter at all when I look through them and enjoy the superb view.

[ChadHahn]

Can anyone tell me how to figure out the differences in the eyepieces between the FMC and MC that Brocknroller mentioned?

Chad

[Simon S]

Hi, somewhere I have posted re brightness between the FC and FMC versions and mine have different coating colours and the FMC was a tough brighter.

[elkcub]

Originally Posted by ChadHahn

Can anyone tell me how to figure out the differences in the eyepieces between the FMC and MC that Brocknroller mentioned?

Chad

I'm not sure about that, however, I have been studying these five Audubons (Pict. 1). It should be pretty clear that the MC 804R on the left is quite different than the others, all of which present green reflections from their objectives.

The second binocular is an HR/5 that is labeled MC. This would make it a Type 4b(1). However, I believe it's really a FMC Type 4b(2). The ocular reflections (Pict. 3) are much more colorful than those of the 804R (Pict. 2).

Do you see the distinct red reflection in Pict. 3? I would like to know which if any of the HR/5s discussed above show this red reflection.

(I'll mention the remaining binocular later, but none has a red reflection like this.)

Ed

[JohnJos]

Ed,
Here are two photos of the ocular reflections from my HR/5. I think they are very much the same as yours.

[elkcub]

Ok, thanks. Now let's see what Chad finds with his, — which, like mine (and yours originally), are marked "Multi-Coated Optics." (Did I get that right?)

I wish someone with an original FMC version [i.e., Type 4b(2)] would chime in.