1991 Swift Audubon 804R - What does it compare to in terms of performance? (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

Yes, I know, the gazillionth question about Swift Audubons. I guess this is what happens with mythical creatures, they generate so much expectation (bear in mind I've read the guide by @elkcub and @Renze de Vries as well as many other threads, so I'm not 100 % new to the different iterations of the 804, just don't know what is it like to look through one).

As a porro-lover I've been interested in the Swift Audubon for quite a while: porro, wide FOV, bright image, lovely ergonomics (i. e. "there's a lot of meat to hold on to"), what's not to like. However, over the years I've bought many binoculars, some of them classic porro devices, and sometimes the pure optical performance (nostalgia aside) has been quite disappointing, hence my question. I remember a very nice Jenoptem in great condition I bought... and my amazement when I tried a 100 € Kowa YF that I found offered simply a more pleasing view (yes, you can burn me in a bonfire now).

I'm contemplating the purchase of a unit from 1991 in very good condition, exactly the same model (american model with thin blue objective rings just like the one posted by @downunder a while ago here. He was pretty impressed with the performance (and he mentioned having both a Nikon EII and a Habicht, so really good benchmarks). I too own a 2018 Nikon EII 8x30 and had a 2018 Habicht 8x30 in the past, so I think I can have common points of reference.

Coming back to the title of this thread. For those of you who have used the mentioned version of the Audubon: if you had to compare it to other binocular in similar/matching performance, what would that be. As I mentioned previously, I have an EII (of the latest version) and have had many other binoculars (several Vixen Ultima porro, which I think are related to the Swift Ultralite, several Vixen Foresta porro, the acclaimed 7x50 and the lovely 8x32, several Minolta Classic, MK, Swift Sea Wolf, Fujinon FMTSX, etc.), so there's a good chance I can have an idea of what other binoculars could come close. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of FMC (although I've read many threads here on BF and also on CN some stating that the difference is not that huge). Currently I mainly use contemporary optics, which I assume are all FMC (Swaro ELSV, Zeiss FL, Nikon EII, etc.), so I'm wary of an underwhelming performance. However, the 7x50 Vixen Ultima porro I use every day from my window is simply adorable, I'm not sure if it has more advanced coatings and perfromance than a 1991 Audubon.

Thanks for reading this far and for any comment regarding the optical performance of these classics.

 

[Mikbul]

I have two pairs of bins that are keepers, 804 HR5's and Nikon 7X35 "E" C and the Audubons out perform the Nikons with their sharp and three dimensional image. You won't be dissapointed!

 

[yarrellii]

... the Audubons out perform the Nikons with their sharp and three dimensional image. You won't be dissapointed!

Wow, thanks, Mikbul, that's quite an endorsement. Somehow I would have thought that the coatings on the Nikon E (C) were ahead of the Audubon. I remember reading about the E (C) series, apparently introduced in the late 80s, so my take is that it was a more "modern and capable" binocular than the Audubon, which until the FMC was lagging behind. Maybe the wider FOV has something to do? Thanks!

 

[Steve C]

You will not know what it is like to look through one until you do it for yourself. If you are already a porro aficionado you won't be disappointed.

 

[Patudo]

I remember a very nice Jenoptem in great condition I bought... and my amazement when I tried a 100 € Kowa YF that I found offered simply a more pleasing view ...

That's not a total surprise to be honest - coatings make a real difference and Jena's T3M coating... well it was better than single-coated but certainly not the equal of Zeiss West's T* (not in the Jenoptems nor in the Nobilem Spezial I have, for that matter). Shame you can't get a Deltrintem body with lenses coated by Kowa! Or a Prominar quality porro by Kowa - wouldn't that be nice!

As for the MC 804R - go on, try it - you know you want to! Don't forget to tell us what you think... 😸

 

[yarrellii]

You will not know what it is like to look through one until you do it for yourself. If you are already a porro aficionado you won't be disappointed.

As for the MC 804R - go on, try it - you know you want to! Don't forget to tell us what you think... 😸

Thanks for your suggestions and encouraging. The main issue is that the binoculars in question seem to never have been used, but testing them first hand (to check for fungus, collimation, etc.) seems difficult. However, I seem to have reached a "return if defect" agreement. So I'll keep you posted 😊

 

[WJC]

Wow, thanks, Mikbul, that's quite an endorsement. Somehow I would have thought that the coatings on the Nikon E (C) were ahead of the Audubon. I remember reading about the E (C) series, apparently introduced in the late 80s, so my take is that it was a more "modern and capable" binocular than the Audubon, which until the FMC was lagging behind. Maybe the wider FOV has something to do? Thanks!

Hi, yarrellii,

Because manufacturers know the average binocular user understands only the most rudimentary information about them and binocular observing, they tend to latch onto the current “talking point” of the masses and weave their magic around whatever has been working for the competition.

These days, MUCH more importance is piled onto the effects/advantages of the various AR coatings than is necessary. In an effort to “reach the common man,” binocular importers, retailers, and marketers tend to say whatever is expedient to get a sale, or promote a concept, with the common man left to evaluate whether or not what he has learned is of any worth in the real world. As often than not ... it isn’t! Although it can keep meaningless discussions on binocular forums going on indefinitely.

With so much emphasis being put on AR coatings—relative to image brightness—I thought I would toss in my 2 cents worth from one of those books I’m not allowed to mention. Please pay attention to the first three paragraphs under “THE BOTTOM LINE” in the attachment. And then realize there are major differences between one observer and another and the fixation on AR coatings—one brand over another—may fade away.

I’m not, for one minute, saying you should stop wasting your money to—drumroll, please—UPGRADE your binocular. If you have the time and money, and need a little more by way of bragging rights, go for it. The optical engineers of the world will leave you to that domain; sitting on the facts, most choose not to participate. Please, just realize the IMPROVEMENT you see ... or THINK you see, may be laid at the feet of a dozen other opto-mechanical realities and not optical coatings.

Finally, AR coatings DO NOT HAVE A TINT! It is convenient for newbies to talk of tints. However, the coating is clear. What is seen as a tint is the wavelength being reflected by that particular coating.

 

[Thotmosis]

I'm still very happy with the Audubon 10x50 FMC that I bought more than 20 years ago. In fact I bought an even older Audubon 8.5x44 MC a few months ago for 125 euro and IMHO it's the best value for money you can get. Ease of view, ergonomics and brightness are -for my eyes!- very good.

 

[WJC]

I'm still very happy with the Audubon 10x50 FMC that I bought more than 20 years ago. In fact I bought an even older Audubon 8.5x44 MC a few months ago for 125 euro and IMHO it's the best value for money you can get. Ease of view, ergonomics and brightness are -for my eyes!- very good.

Hi, Thotmosis,

I, too, had the 10x50 Audubon. Near the end of the company—right after Humphrey Swift died and his heir, Alison, decimated it, the 10x50 was renamed the Kestrel. Humphrey told me that Swift had to pay the Audubon Society $30,000 a year for the right to use the name (per model). So the Audubon name was dropped from the 10x50 unit.

When I bought mine, I sold well over 100 models of the world’s finest binos in 5 showcases. I could have had any bino I wanted. But, for me, bragging rights were useless. A great binocular at a good price was the ticket.

I set my Audubon aside when I bought my Nikon 8x32 SE. But I still thought enough of the Audubon to put it on the cover of my first binocular book.

 

[Thotmosis]

Hi, Thotmosis,

I, too, had the 10x50 Audubon. Near the end of the company—right after Humphrey Swift died and his heir, Alison, decimated it, the 10x50 was renamed the Kestrel. Humphrey told me that Swift had to pay the Audubon Society $30,000 a year for the right to use the name (per model). So the Audubon name was dropped from the 10x50 unit.

When I bought mine, I sold well over 100 models of the world’s finest binos in 5 showcases. I could have had any bino I wanted. But, for me, bragging rights were useless. A great binocular at a good price was the ticket.

I set my Audubon aside when I bought my Nikon 8x32 SE. But I still thought enough of the Audubon to put it on the cover of my first binocular book.

Hi WJC and Happy New Year!

I don't have the 10x50 at hand right now but if I remember correctly it has written both Audubon and Kestrell on it. But maybe im wrong.

Great pictures and some interesting history about the Swift company. They still make Swift binoculars don't they?

I see three Habichts on the upper shelf, I own a Habixht 10x40 in green rubber armor since a few months and if I see it correct right under it a Leica Duovid 8-12 that I also own. Both binoculars I bought used.

Is that you on the cover of the book?

EDIT: Yes it has both Audubon and Kestrel written on it, see post #11 in this tread Levenhuk Sherman Pro 12x50

 

[WJC]

Hi WJC and Happy New Year!

I don't have the 10x50 at hand right now but if I remember correctly it has written both Audubon and Kestrell on it. But maybe im wrong.

Great pictures and some interesting history about the Swift company. They still make Swift binoculars don't they?

I see three Habichts on the upper shelf, I own a Habixht 10x40 in green rubber armor since a few months and if I see it correct right under it a Leica Duovid 8-12 that I also own. Both binoculars I bought used.

Is that you on the cover of the book?

EDIT: Yes it has both Audubon and Kestrel written on it, see post #11 in this tread Levenhuk Sherman Pro 12x50

No matter what you think you know about running a business, you should never try to change too many things at once. Captain’s new (and FINAL? owner) moved the store from an 18,000 car-a-day location to a backwater in old Ballard, changed the name from Captain’s Nautical Supplies—which had been recognized all over the world for well almost 120 years—to a non-descript “Captain’s Supplies,” and dropped most of the fine optics section I had created and managed for 21 years, which was recognized as the premier optics dealer on the west coast with some customers driving from out of state to shop. The last I heard they were trying to sell stuff online from Southern California. However, the James G. Murphy company (an auction house) of Seattle sold off the goods from the Ballard store two years ago.

Audubon to Kestrel. When Swift decided to drop the Audubon name, they didn’t do it all at once. Thus, the instrument carried both names for a time.

“They still make Swift binoculars, don’t they?”

Swift never made binoculars. I believe both came from Kama-tech in Chula Vista, California or its parent company Kamakura in Japan. I know their Seahawk did. Shortly before Swift went under, the Seahawk (a peregrine falcon) got a new WA eyepiece (see both models attached). I liked this model a lot. However, Masaki “Mark” Kamakura said I would need to order them in lots of 100 and we just couldn’t do that.

“Is that you on the cover of the book?”

Yes. That book has 37 pages dedicated to “Collimation vs Conditional Alignment.” The whole 68 pages of the one attached is dedicated to that as well. The idea I have been fostering since 1976, when I was a Navy Opticalman, has been endorse by SPIE (the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers) and was published in their Proceedings magazine, Oct. 2012). But, as long as there are so many optical wizards out there who KNOW you can “collimate” your binocular by looking on a power pole, roofline, fence, and the like—never taking the observer’s spatial accommodation into account, it won’t really be considered until I am long dead.

A person with a high mechanical aptitude—and enough experience—can do just about all that is needed to repair or restore a binocular. It is not so with 3-axis collimation. Is it hard? NO! Does it require expensive equipment? NO! It’s just that most people who buy into that juvenile garbage in the last paragraph will never get around to learning the craft or even care to do so.

“No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.” — Mark Twain (attributed)

 

[Thotmosis]

No matter what you think you know about running a business, you should never try to change too many things at once. Captain’s new (and FINAL? owner) moved the store from an 18,000 car-a-day location to a backwater in old Ballard, changed the name from Captain’s Nautical Supplies—which had been recognized all over the world for well almost 120 years—to a non-descript “Captain’s Supplies,” and dropped most of the fine optics section I had created and managed for 21 years, which was recognized as the premier optics dealer on the west coast with some customers driving from out of state to shop. The last I heard they were trying to sell stuff online from Southern California. However, the James G. Murphy company (an auction house) of Seattle sold off the goods from the Ballard store two years ago.

Audubon to Kestrel. When Swift decided to drop the Audubon name, they didn’t do it all at once. Thus, the instrument carried both names for a time.

“They still make Swift binoculars, don’t they?”

Swift never made binoculars. I believe both came from Kama-tech in Chula Vista, California or its parent company Kamakura in Japan. I know their Seahawk did. Shortly before Swift went under, the Seahawk (a peregrine falcon) got a new WA eyepiece (see both models attached). I liked this model a lot. However, Masaki “Mark” Kamakura said I would need to order them in lots of 100 and we just couldn’t do that.

“Is that you on the cover of the book?”

Yes. That book has 37 pages dedicated to “Collimation vs Conditional Alignment.” The whole 68 pages of the one attached is dedicated to that as well. The idea I have been fostering since 1976, when I was a Navy Opticalman, has been endorse by SPIE (the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers) and was published in their Proceedings magazine, Oct. 2012). But, as long as there are so many optical wizards out there who KNOW you can “collimate” your binocular by looking on a power pole, roofline, fence, and the like—never taking the observer’s spatial accommodation into account, it won’t really be considered until I am long dead.

A person with a high mechanical aptitude—and enough experience—can do just about all that is needed to repair or restore a binocular. It is not so with 3-axis collimation. Is it hard? NO! Does it require expensive equipment? NO! It’s just that most people who buy into that juvenile garbage in the last paragraph will never get around to learning the craft or even care to do so.

“No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.” — Mark Twain (attributed)

You and binoculars go a long way back, that's a fact!

I really like this big, bad fat 7x50 Porro's. Looks like they made to last forever.

Cheers,
T.

 

[WJC]

You and binoculars go a long way back, that's a fact!

I really like this big, bad fat 7x50 Porro's. Looks like they made to last forever.

Cheers,
T.

At Captain's, I referred to the Swift Storm King as the "Binoscerous." It was also the Celestron "Waterproof," the Tamaya BIFR, and others. I'm having a SENIOR moment and can't remember the actual manufacturer. In the late '90s, Practical Sailor ran an article about a fisherman who dug one partially submerged in mud that had been under for months or years that when cleaned off was good as new, with zero leakage.

When the price on the Storm King approached that of the Fujinon MTR-SX, people switched to the Fujinon. What's in a NAME ... quite a lot actually.

I just called Alan Hale, Celestron's co-founder and long-time CEO to ask him about the origin. If he's not having his own senior moment, he'll remember and I will pass it on.

 

[yarrellii]

Hi, yarrellii,

Because manufacturers know the average binocular user understands only the most rudimentary information about them and binocular observing, they tend to latch onto the current “talking point” of the masses and weave their magic around whatever has been working for the competition...

WJC, thanks, that was a great read, really informative and enlightening. I've been recently trying a 7x35 Gold Sentinel (which hardly has the latest word in coatings) and the view is simply outstanding. So, as you say, there's so much more to the view than the newest and flashiest of names in coatings/technologies.
Thank you as always for your unerring observations!

 

[WJC]

WJC, thanks, that was a great read, really informative and enlightening. I've been recently trying a 7x35 Gold Sentinel (which hardly has the latest word in coatings) and the view is simply outstanding. So, as you say, there's so much more to the view than the newest and flashiest of names in coatings/technologies.
Thank you as always for your unerring observations!

Thanks yarrellii. My observation are never unerring! It's just that most members of bino forums lack the wherewithal to call me on it.

Some on this forum, I wouldn't question. I just have the others SHOW me the doctrine ... which MOST aren't familiar with (preposition at the end, an all.) It is so much easier to pontificate than do research ... right?

Have a great day!

 

[WJC]

At Captain's, I referred to the Swift Storm King as the "Binoscerous." It was also the Celestron "Waterproof," the Tamaya BIFR, and others. I'm having a SENIOR moment and can't remember the actual manufacturer. In the late '90s, Practical Sailor ran an article about a fisherman who dug one partially submerged in mud that had been under for months or years that when cleaned off was good as new, with zero leakage.

When the price on the Storm King approached that of the Fujinon MTR-SX, people switched to the Fujinon. What's in a NAME ... quite a lot actually.

I just called Alan Hale, Celestron's co-founder and long-time CEO to ask him about the origin. If he's not having his own senior moment, he'll remember and I will pass it on.

I've contacted Alan. I'm 70; he's 80 and neither can remember. However, he said he thinks he can get back to me in about a week.

 

[Thotmosis]

"In the late '90s, Practical Sailor ran an article about a fisherman who dug one partially submerged in mud that had been under for months or years that when cleaned off was good as new, with zero leakage."

Well WJC if this isn't a triple A quality test, I don't know what could beat it