ranburr said:
Just because BVD rates the Swift as the poor mans Swaro, doesn't make it so. BVD is a good read and I wish it was still being updated. But, it is not the Holy Grail. There are some obvious biases, just like in any other evaluation. The only optics evaluations that I take with more than a grain of salt are those performed by "Gun Test" magazine. Not only do they not take any advertising $$$, they walk into a store and purchase the test optics just as you and I would. Unfortuneately they do not do enough optics testing, but what they do test is pretty informative. And yes, they also have some personal biases, but at least I know that there is no corporate influences. More than one company has tried to shut them down after being given a poor review.
ranburr
I've personally tested several Swift Audubon's and they are an optically excellent binocular. The public criticisms of this bin relate to: true waterproofing and fog proofing, eye relief, and overall build quality versus the earlier models. The optics have never been in doubt: they are superb!
Published "evaluations" are merely a starting point for personal evaluation and nothing more. Why people get so agitated about them is becoming obvious:
1. Many owners seek affirmation that they bought the right binocular. I guess it's not enough to own and enjoy a first-class bin. Negative criticisms are often explained away by claiming "sample variations" that never apply to the bin they own and use.
2. Prospective owners are looking for definitive advice and "expert" evaluations are often inconclusive. There are no clear winners and losers when it comes to what people like in optics! Purchasing via the Internet further complicates the decision-making process, resulting in additional frustration for new buyers.
3. Owner loyalties, badge envy, and all the other silliness people can dream up rise up in full force every time one of these reviews is mentioned.
Personally, I don't care what anyone thinks of my gear, how I'm dressed, or what bird guide I have in my hand. My life list is in my head, I sometimes forget the names of birds I see every day, and I enjoy watching Turkey Vultures swoop and soar as much as I do Bald Eagles. I've seen $50 bins that impressed me and $1000 bins that bored me. One "expert" told me that lower priced optics are tuned to look great in the store under fluorescent lighting and that the Nikon SE is just another "porro". I believed the first half of the remark and laughed at the second.
The two best birding porro prism bins I've looked at are the 8X32 SE and the Swift Audubon 8.5X44. If someone knows of a better porro prism binocular, suitable for birding, I'm all ears. I've come to the conclusion that I strongly prefer the porro view and I think it's related to my relatively narrow 57 mm IPD measurement. My preference for porros is only true in the 10-100 foot range. Past that point the views are nearly identical. My narrow IPD may also explain why I have no trouble seeing a perfect image at the 10-foot minimum of my SE. I’ve yet to find a roof that is as comfortable on my eyes at that range.
The bottom line is that no review provides a comprehensive list of the “best” bins available to birders. Omitting the Nikon SE is a prime example. I don’t care if Nikon didn’t provide a sample for evaluation; it should have been included as a sterling example of optical prowess, albeit with environmental limitations. The fact that birding “professionals” published a review of binoculars without mentioning the SE is, IMO, a sin of omission. The Swift falls into the same category.
Forget the reviews, listen to the comments of BF members, and always try before you buy!!
John