Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars - A Beginner's Experience (4 Viewers)

[elkcub]

....
Its a very interesting topic though this Swift history and i hope more folk throw light on the lesser known specs etc
At this rate Ed you and a couple of other forum folk will likely build a Swift "reference" file which will become definitive

Regards
Rich

Many thanks. Any encouragement at all should keep us going.

-ed

 

[downunder]

Ed, bad news - I've just returned from York Optical in Brisbane. They have some sort of military contract and are short staffed. I may not get my Audubons back collimated until as late as Easter. I won't forget to send you the serial number for the first pair when I eventually get them back.

In the meantime, I decided I needed a pair of waterproof roof prism binoculars and bought a cheap pair of Carson 8x42 XM binoculars from eBinoculars.com for $168 US. It will be interesting to compare these to the Audubons. My first experience is that they give an very clear bright image but a considerably reduced field of view (compared my memory of the audubons). I'm quite impressed that such a cheap pair of roof prisms are this good. I am also amazed that these arrived by air from the USA and are absolutely perfectly collimated. It further strengthens my suspicions about the eBay dealers' descriptions of the two older Audubons being perfectly collimated before they were sent to me.

 

[elkcub]

Downunder,

I've never encountered Carson binoculars, but it looks like you got an outstanding price. Phase coated, nitrogen purged, etc. — not bad. The apparent FOV is considerably smaller than the Audubon's and the weight it about the same. Sorry that it's taking to long to get your Swifts collimated. I'll keep tuned.

Ed

 

[downunder]

Ed, I think you were correct with the serial numbers. I've just got my binoculars back. The serial number on the one that had that end cap was 725957. Both of my binoculars are type 2A so 1972 (first two nos depict the year of manufacture) matches.

Although these are good binoculars, my Carsons are another level or two above both Swifts in every respect and amazing for the price. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a better image would be possible. I know the Swifts are old, but they are perfectly collimated now and the Carsons give a crisper image, are far brighter, much easier to focus, give a focused image right to the edges and that's not counting the waterproofing, lighter weight (mine are 24 ounces), etc and in real use I find it amazing that the field of view is not much different. I think it shows to some extent the advances made in binoculars in recent years to be able to produce something of the quality of the Carsons for such an amazingly low price.

 

[elkcub]

Ed, I think you were correct with the serial numbers. I've just got my binoculars back. The serial number on the one that had that end cap was 725957. Both of my binoculars are type 2A so 1972 (first two nos depict the year of manufacture) matches.

Although these are good binoculars, my Carsons are another level or two above both Swifts in every respect and amazing for the price. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a better image would be possible. I know the Swifts are old, but they are perfectly collimated now and the Carsons give a crisper image, are far brighter, much easier to focus, give a focused image right to the edges and that's not counting the waterproofing, lighter weight (mine are 24 ounces), etc and in real use I find it amazing that the field of view is not much different. I think it shows to some extent the advances made in binoculars in recent years to be able to produce something of the quality of the Carsons for such an amazingly low price.

Hi,

Thanks for the post. I almost forgot you. Yes, I have little doubt that many advances have been made since 1972 and your Carson's are nicer in all those respects. Remember, we wrote a history of the Audubon not an endorsement from time immemorial. Those large body Type 2s were very heavy, and were not multicoated. I wouldn't use one day to day either.

Looking at this ad for a Carson 8x40 porro, http://www.opticsplanet.net/carson-8x40-os-binocular.html, on the surface it looks like the small body Type 4 Audubons. It's probably based on the same Japanese design which is pretty bullet-proof. Is this what you have?

Let's hear from you once in a while.

Best regards,
Ed

 

[James Bean]

My Audubon is the 804(3b)HR, extra wide field, gold band (1984) and the most relaxing view of all my binoculars, even compared to my favourite Zeiss Jena 8x50 BGA Octarem. I don't mind the size or weight; indeed, it sits nicely in my hands and feels 'just right'. The 804 is truly a classic and still compares favourably with most modern binoculars, an amazing feat for an 'oldtimer'...

 

[elkcub]

James,

Very interesting. What is the width of the eyecups in mm? I don't own a Type 3.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[James Bean]

Ed, Nice to converse with you...
Diameter of rubber eyecups, measured from outer edge, is 44mm (maybe 45mm) and the ocular lenses are 25mm across. Field width is 445ft at 1,000yds. My Audubon says "HR" and not "HR/5" but I gather this is not significant. The rubber cups' depth is only 12mm, and merely 5mm of that extends beyond the metal ocular surround, so can't be 'folded down' in the usual sense: all they do is protect spectacles from being scratched; since I don't wear glasses, I can get close and see the 'whole picture', which is probably why I find the view brilliant and 'restful', even better than the Zeiss Jena Octarem which does have 'up' or 'down' rubber cups (no half-way, so I always have them folded down, for a 'bigger view'). I find most of my binoculars with rubber cups give me a better view if the cups are left folded down, even though this facility is meant for those with glasses! Each to his own, eh? Jim.

 

[elkcub]

Ed, Nice to converse with you...
Diameter of rubber eyecups, measured from outer edge, is 44mm (maybe 45mm) and the ocular lenses are 25mm across. Field width is 445ft at 1,000yds. My Audubon says "HR" and not "HR/5" but I gather this is not significant. The rubber cups' depth is only 12mm, and merely 5mm of that extends beyond the metal ocular surround, so can't be 'folded down' in the usual sense: all they do is protect spectacles from being scratched; since I don't wear glasses, I can get close and see the 'whole picture', which is probably why I find the view brilliant and 'restful', even better than the Zeiss Jena Octarem which does have 'up' or 'down' rubber cups (no half-way, so I always have them folded down, for a 'bigger view'). I find most of my binoculars with rubber cups give me a better view if the cups are left folded down, even though this facility is meant for those with glasses! Each to his own, eh? Jim.

Hi Jim,

It sounds like you own the version shown on pg. 8 or our paper, which says "Audubon" above "H.R." on the right cover plate. I assume it means "High Resolution" but we have no confirmation. The HR/5 mark didn't show up until Type 4b appeared in the modern era.

Your 45mm rubber eyecup corresponds exactly with the Type 2 models sold in North America during the same period. I have a lot of trouble with them pressing against the sides of my nose. When the IPD is set to 64mm, the space between the eyecups ("interocular breath") is only 2.0cm, which is much smaller than even the 5th percentile (2.7cm) of of the population (of US aviators, 1978). My IPD would have to be 69mm for my nose to be comfortable. So, I take it you have a wide IPD or a narrow nose. Nothing personal, just nosy.

Regards,
Ed

 

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, My IPD is 64 or thereabouts, so it must be the narrow top of my nose! My other Swifts, an 8x32 SP(1985) (looks like a scaled-down 804) and 7.5x42 Osprey HRGA(1989) both have rubber eyecups designed to roll down. However, with their eyecups up, both give 'tunnel vision' so I always use them rolled down, with the resulting slightly thicker rubber eyecups pressed into my eye sockets, giving an improved view but not in the same class as the Audubon. SP ocular lens diameter is 21mm, the Osprey only 19mm. The folded eyecup diameters are 40mm(SP) and 39mm(Osprey) and I have to place them carefully to avoid 'blackouts', so neither is an 'easy view'. Picking up the Audubon after using the other two is always a revelation, so easy, so clear, so bright.
I remember buying the Audubon secondhand about 10 years ago from a camera shop in Chester for £125. From the shop door I looked across the road at Chester Cathedral and had my first 'wow' moment. As 'Sam' (Tom Hanks) said to 'Doctor Marcia' in 'Sleepless in Seattle', "...it was like coming home, it was like...magic". Maybe I'm daft to wax lyrical about just a binocular, but there is something unique about 'the Audubon experience'.
Regards, Jim.

 

[elkcub]

Jim,

Yup, it must be a narrow bridge that does it for you.

My 1985 Pyser catalog shows the red dot SP 8x32/383', which appears to be what you have. Just for reference, what is the s/n and Japanese maker's mark on it? The Audubons, of course, were made by Hiyoshi Kogaku (JL B-56). With only a 7.3˚ FOV, the 8x32's would be rather tunnel like — and the 8.49˚ Audubons a WOW experience by comparison. The 7.5x42/367' Osprey has an even a narrower 7˚ FOV.

My feeling is that the 804 Audubon was significantly improved with the introduction of the small body Type 4 in early the 1980s. Apparently, early Swift-Pyser HR/5 models with multi-coating may have predated the 1985 introduction of Model 804R in the US. They are great, but my recommendation would still be to update your Swift collection with a later "fully multi-coated" version if you can. The 804ED is the ultimate. In my opinion, it's the finest binocular ever produced by the hand of man — and that includes all of the big four.

Regards,
Ed

 

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, Thanks for that... Yes, the SP has the red dot, no.851261, J-B56. It's a nice size to hold too, although the 804(3b)'s greater heft isn't a problem when I can enjoy such a wonderful view. I'm sure you're right about the later, smaller 804s being optically better, but I've seen reports of poorer build quality and 'popping' out of collimation, whereas my chunky older Audubon seems built like a T-34 tank. Yes, I'd love an 804ED: there was one for sale on eBay a while ago; this 'rare and sought after' model went for a premium price, although I can't recall how much. I did look at an 820 in a camera shop a couple of years back: it was clear and sharp, but I couldn't seem to get a 'comfortable' view; I don't know why. So, what's the best 804 all-rounder...any model with 'fully multi-coated' on it? Incidentally, I've just had the good fortune to buy an 'as new' Kowa BD 10x30 on eBay for £150 (half rrp in UK) and it's quite an eye opener (literally) but, in comparison with my Swift Audubon, 'that's a horse of a different colour'. Jim.

 

[John M Robinson]

ElkCub,

Is there a particular size 804ED that you prefer over the others? I already have a 10x42 Nikon SE, an 8x32 Ultravid and a 6x30 Yosemite.

Thanks,
John

 

[elkcub]

Jim,

Thanks for the useful information about the red-dot SP. It appears to conform with Hiyoshi's s/n convention of using the first two digits to indicate the year of manufacture. The chances are that your 8x32 may use the same type of prism alignment screws as the 804. On the front, look carefully at the coverings mid way between the hinges to see if there are "U" shaped flaps cut into the material. Similar flaps will show up on the back side between the main tube and eyepiece housing. I'm curious if you find them.

One of the problems with used Type 4 Swifts is that they may have been subject to repair by incompetents — often, no doubt, the owners. Although external alignment screws are easy enough to access, one really has to understand the mechanism before making adjustments. The springs at each internal mounting location have to be in proper compression, otherwise the collimation may only be conditional (for one IPD), or mechanically unstable (leading to popping out of alignment). It's best left to qualified persons, who, fortunately, are still around.

I would think this sort of thing plagues any old binocular, not just Swifts. For a while Renze and I were confused by a report that some 804EDs had cemented doublets, rather than air-spaced objectives. Nicolas Crista, Swift's master opticalman in Boston, pointed out that some repairmen cemented the lens elements if the very thin spacer was lost. Others have reported a rare species of leather covered 804EDs, no doubt also hatched in some repair shop along the way.

Yes, since man's ultimate binoculars are no longer manufactured, we all have to make do with penultimates in the form of Swaro SLCs, Nikon LXLs, and now Kowa. Congrats on the great financial deal you happened upon.

Regards,
Ed

 

[elkcub]

ElkCub,

Is there a particular size 804ED that you prefer over the others? I already have a 10x42 Nikon SE, an 8x32 Ultravid and a 6x30 Yosemite.

Thanks,
John

Well, yes. An 8.5x44/430' configuration is ideal. All the others are — how to put this diplomatically — lacking in one way or another. :king:

You're welcome, by the way.
Elk

 

[James Bean]

Hi Ed, As you surmised, the SP has those U-shaped flaps. Mine is pristine, with no signs of tampering. As to updating my Swift Audubon experience, apart from the 804ED (hard to find and expensive) and looking for "fully multi-coated", which later model 804 would tick most of the boxes? I wouldn't want my trusty 3b to feel neglected though... Jim.

 

[John M Robinson]

Did Downunder ever get either one or both of his ebay 804s back in good order?

 

[elkcub]

Hi Ed, As you surmised, the SP has those U-shaped flaps. Mine is pristine, with no signs of tampering. As to updating my Swift Audubon experience, apart from the 804ED (hard to find and expensive) and looking for "fully multi-coated", which later model 804 would tick most of the boxes? I wouldn't want my trusty 3b to feel neglected though... Jim.

Jim,

The first Audubon I bought on eBay turned out to be a mint Type 1c, made in 1965 by Tamron — also with a 445' field. The metal eyecups, which retract about 3mm for eyeglasses, are only 42mm in diameter and have the same 2mm interocular breadth as your Type 3b. They fit me perfectly with no room to spare. Marvelously clear and clean. I never had to have them cleaned or aligned, and they are truly magnificent. Still, these are used for veneration purposes only, and they might feel neglected. Being kept on a pedestal must have its down side.

Basically, the Type 4 you should look for will say "HR/5" and "Fully Multi-Coated" (FMC) It turns out that some models marked "HR/5" and "Multi Coated Optics" (MC) are actually FMC, but unless you know what to look for it's better to play it safe. Also, Pyser sold HR/5 models with MC much earlier in Europe than Swift USA, so there is another good reason to be cautious. Any 804ED, of course, will be FMC for sure.

Ed

 

[ceasar]

I have an Audubon Model 804 8.5 x 44 HR/5 FMC (J-B 56). I like it alot but use it mostly on my deck and for casual astronomy. It's optics are first class; it is a real pleasure to use. It has short eye relief but I don't wear glasses and it isn't a problem. It does have one peculiarity though. The wider your IPD is, the further your fingers get from the focus wheel. I have an IPD of 68mm and large hands but I find that I have to operate the focus wheel with the tip of my middle finger. I like to hold them resting more or less on my palms. If my IPD were 62mm I could use the tips of both my index and middle fingers, but then my nose, which is romanesque, gets slightly pinched. I believe this issue with the nose and a narrow IPD was mentioned in an earlier thread.

All that aside, I can tell you that these 804's are one fine binocular, and if the ED version is better, it must be spectacular and in a class with the Nikon SE's which I also own.

Cordially,
Bob

 

[elkcub]

Did Downunder ever get either one or both of his ebay 804s back in good order?

Can't recall. It's been some time. :scribe: