Historical Review of Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars (1 Viewer)

elkcub · Jun 2, 2009

Dennis,

My very first Audubon was the same model Type-1c. When I opened the case I was confronted by two orbs of glass covered by a uniform layer of a very fine white powder. It was as if I were opening King Tut's tomb.

It turned out that the cement on the inside lining of the cover had deteriorated over time into a very fine powder that settled on the exposed lenses. Other than that the instrument was absolutely perfect, like yours. It was easy enough to clean and re-glue the lining, and my Giotto hand blower prevented the lenses from being scratched. So, I have a pretty good idea of your reaction to this beauty from the past.

Of course, in my case the experience got me started looking into the Audubon's history—which has been a lot of fun. There is nothing quite like having a specimen in hand to understand the state of technology. However, I wasn't really satisfied until Renze and I were able to nail down the elusive Type-0.

It gradually became clear to me that one of the continuing struggles in Audubon history was how to deal with eye relief and eyecup design. Type-1c was the third or forth effort, which involved only a 2-3mm screw-out eyecup. Obviously, this was expensive to manufacture but not very effective. Still, the eyecup didn't get lost like the earlier push-on and bayonet mounted ones made of bakelite.

Ed

Kevin Purcell · Jun 2, 2009

treeman55 said:
As noted in their paper, it is curious that it would be called a featherweight. Maybe it's a psychological suggestion so that the weight won't bother you so much as it hangs on your neck.

Or perhaps evidence that the marketing department had an ironic sense of humor.

treeman55 · Jun 2, 2009

Ed, great to hear of your original find on the 1-c's and that they cleaned up nice. You mentioned blowing off the lenses in cleaning. I was told by someone that you never want to wipe binocular lenses to clean them. I have to admit that I have wiped them with my shirt many times in the field but am careful not to pull dirt from the edges across the glass, or I might wet a small piece of tissue and clean the lenses. I haven't scratched anything that I can tell so far. Should I knock off that practice?

A funny thing, speaking of the screw out eye cups on the Audubon, I didn't realize they were on my Holiday Mk11 until I read about and used them on the Audubon and thought "hey these have the same eyepieces as the Holiday" so I grabbed one and turned it and guess what. eye cups. No wonder my eyes always seemed to be just a little too close. I actually like them, and as you said, you won't be losing them.
Also, my curiosity is aroused. What is the elusive type-O Audubon?

elkcub · Jun 4, 2009

Hi Dennis,

The basic idea is to first get any hard particles of dirt/dust off the glass so they can't scratch the thin coatings or the glass itself. A hand blower and lens brush work very well, just as on a camera lens. After that I like to use a cotton swab with alcohol, finished by a dry cotton wipe. Zeiss/Swaro lens cleaner is also fine. The blower/brush is usually all that's needed in the field. Tuck in your shirt.

Ed

treeman55 · Jun 4, 2009

Thanks Ed for the recommend. I'll get the brush.

treeman55 · Jun 18, 2009

I'm talking to myself here now, but I felt I had to make another statement in defense of the Saratoga binocular I commented on in post #142. I said that I had purchased an older 8X40 Saratoga and was not impressed with the view. After considering what was wrong with the image, I realized it was very sharp but just hazy. I Sent them off to Nicolas Crista for cleaning and collimation and what a difference. Now they just may be my brightest pair of glasses. Beautiful sharp image.

elkcub · Jun 19, 2009

...I Sent them off to Nicolas Crista for cleaning and collimation and what a difference. Now they just may be my brightest pair of glasses. Beautiful sharp image.

Sometimes I wonder how many great glasses have been sold or discarded just because they're dirty, stiff, or out of collimation. And, I'll bet, as often as not they were replaced by inferior products.

You've motivated me to send off my 8x40 Linet Ultrawide's for Nick's famous bi-century service. :-O

Ed

treeman55 · Jun 19, 2009

Great Idea Ed
Let's do our part to keep the oldies alive to be enjoyed by others.
I think Nicolas appreciates the business also. He was very pleasant to speak to.
Also, I'm finding that it's easy to become addicted to "Extra Wide Field".
Dennis

elkcub · Jun 22, 2009

For the last year or two I've been evaluating several classy binoculars, including the Nikon 8x32 SE and LXL, and the older Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P, — all of which I purchased and use. They are all great birding binoculars.

However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use. The key is keeping the instrument in top condition, but that can really be said about all the others too.

For those who share what I believe to be the unique 804 experience, I've attached Swift-Anderson's writeup about the Type-0, which appeared in a recently discovered 1959 catalog. I was amazed that they saw it the same way at the very beginning as I do now. Of course, they did improve the 804 along the way. :t:

Ed

chartwell99 · Jun 22, 2009

elkcub said:
However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use.
Ed

Ed - Thanks so much for sharing the Swift write-up. I am always amazed and delighted when I use my 804 Audubon (HR5) and wish I bought when available the ED model with its better weather sealing to deal with the Texas morning humidity on the lenses. The write-up is also interesting in that I had not realized that the Neptune has a wider FOV.The numbers may bear that out but the Audubon seems noticeably the wider field binocular.

Steve C · Jun 22, 2009

elkcub said:
However, when all is said and done there is nothing more satisfying to me than a Type-4 804 Audubon porro. When properly cleaned, lubed, and collimated, nothing else has achieved that "just-right" combination of features that makes it a continuing joy to use. The key is keeping the instrument in top condition, but that can really be said about all the others too.

Ed

That's a good post Ed. I have to agree with it too. What I notice after using mine for awhile is that the extra .5x magnification, for me anyway, seems to manifest itself at the longer distances at which the magnification is useful.

When I got mine, I really thought that there was nothing much the matter with them. However, I could occasionally hear a bit of a rattle from somewhere. There was also quite a bit of play in the eyepiece bridge and the diopter ring I thought moved far too easily. So I boxed them up and sent them to Nicholas Crista. He found a loose prism plate, cleaned them and collimated them to "his" standard. He eliminated the bridge flex and tightened up the diopter. Holy cow, what a difference that made.

Sometimes as we use a binocular we get used to its slight levels of deterioration and simply do not realize they are there. So some sort of critical examination is useful. So is having someplace to send them.

elkcub · Jun 22, 2009

Good eye, Tom. I've attached pg 4, which includes the 7x35 Neptune that had a FOV of 365 ft. The Audubon's AFOV would be 69.75 deg vs. a rather narrow 48.7 deg Neptune. Obviously, they made a boo-boo.

(Steve)...Sometimes as we use a binocular we get used to its slight levels of deterioration and simply do not realize they are there. So some sort of critical examination is useful. So is having someplace to send them.

Right, that's human adaptation for ya. Somewhat akin to watching moss grow. :-O

Ed

Pinewood · Jun 22, 2009

Hello Ed,

From the advertisement, I learned that 8.5 magnification was pushing the limit, as Swift recommended bracing the instrument in use. I certainly think so, as do some experts about the utility of binoculars with magnifications above eight. Before WW II, the standard birding glass may have been a 6x30, but that may have been due to poor light transmission before coating. 7x35's would have had the same illunination but more bulk. Post World War II, 8x40, and even 10x40 seem to have become rather popular.
I wonder if the market has shifted to appealing to "real men," who think they can handle those magnifications steady and don't tire from carrying the weight. Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:

Renze de Vries · Jun 22, 2009

elkcub said:
For those who share what I believe to be the unique 804 experience, I've attached Swift-Anderson's writeup about the Type-0, which appeared in a recently discovered 1959 catalog.Ed

I wonder who wrote this promotional text. Could Hop Swift have done it himself? It's quite remarkable, as it makes use of a polemical style you won't often find in writeups like this. The Audubon is portrayed in juxtaposition to other models by summing up what it does NOT have (and what's lacking in those other models as well!) and in what conditions it better should NOT be used.
A truly great piece of writing.

Renze

Kevin Purcell · Jun 22, 2009

Pinewood said:
I wonder if the market has shifted to appealing to "real men," who think they can handle those magnifications steady and don't tire from carrying the weight. Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.

The Vukabratovich bin design paper shows that the measured result the efficiency (the effective magnification) of handheld 10x bins is greater handheld 7x bins. You can see more (identify targets at father range). It does shake more but with typical shake the higher magnification still has an advantage.

This leads to the classic FOV versus magnification trade off.

The other trend of the late 1950 and 1960s along with higher magnification of course was wide field bins. The thread on Chandler Robbin's bins pointed out those Bushnell Featherweight 10x50 had a 7 degree field. Even the Zeiss 10x50 in the 1960s and early 70s offered a 128m at 1km. That's a 7.3 degree field. So the penalty was not as great as it is now with even the best 10x bin getting up to 6.8 degrees field (Zeiss, Leica) and most a bit less.

I think at this time there was a "7-10 split" just starting to develop. Anyone have any concrete data on when 10x became more popular with birders? I used to think this was the late 1960s but I'm beginning to believe it was in the 1950s. I would think the change in models offered by a particular company (like Swift) might reveal how people moved to a higher magnification. And I think Swift at the time catered for both groups.

BTW, was this model the first 8.5x bin?

elkcub · Jun 23, 2009

Renze de Vries said:
I wonder who wrote this promotional text. Could Hop Swift have done it himself? It's quite remarkable, as it makes use of a polemical style you won't often find in writeups like this. The Audubon is portrayed in juxtaposition to other models by summing up what it does NOT have (and what's lacking in those other models as well!) and in what conditions it better should NOT be used.
A truly great piece of writing.

Renze

There is a laudable 'truthiness' about the writeup, but, of course, the word wasn't invented until a few years ago.

Kevin, I don't know if the Audubon was the first 8.5x on the market, but the added magnification also compensates for a loss in perceived size compared to an 8x roof design. The 8x30/32 roofs that I own produce similar sized apparent objects.

Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)

Ed

elkcub · Jun 23, 2009

Pinewood said:
... Of course, a modern roof 8x42 is a lot lighter than the original Audubon, but I could never make a ten power glass my standard because of both stability and reduced FOV.

Hi Arthur,

True. Increased magnification and reduced FOV do produce a combined compromise greater than either considered separately. I find that the 10x50 Audubon/Kestrel is considerably more birding worthy than the 10x42 SLC, for example, primarily because of the FOV difference: 7 deg vs 6.3. Without the larger FOV, tracking ability is compromised.

For my money, I find the 8.5x of the Audubon is just about right, since the AFOV is maintained at very close to 70 deg. (69.75). The Kestrel really does require some propping up for the long view.

Ed

Kevin Purcell · Jun 24, 2009

caesar said:
Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)

I think in this case Bob is joking but the more appropriate average for magnifications (multiplications) is the geometric mean: sqrt(7*10) = 8.333.

Which, of course, doesn't really prove anything. Except someone should make 8.33x bins

Good point about the x8.5 compensating for the "smaller" image in porros.

I noticed this myself (again) when comparing a 10x42 porro to Canon IS 10x30 recently. Clearly it's all down to objective lens seperation (rather than roof versus porro).

I'm still surprised we don't see more wide 10x bin. Perhaps "wide bins" will be a differentiator of the future too.

elkcub · Jun 24, 2009

Kevin Purcell said:
Originally Posted by caesar
Also note that (7+10)/2 = 8.5, proving that compromise forestalls bickering, and that regression to the mean is a useful polemic. (Did I really say that?)

Click to expand...

I think in this case Bob is joking but the more appropriate average for magnifications (multiplications) is the geometric mean: sqrt(7*10) = 8.333.

Which, of course, doesn't really prove anything. Except someone should make 8.33x bins

Good point about the x8.5 compensating for the "smaller" image in porros.

I noticed this myself (again) when comparing a 10x42 porro to Canon IS 10x30 recently. Clearly it's all down to objective lens seperation (rather than roof versus porro).

I'm still surprised we don't see more wide 10x bin. Perhaps "wide bins" will be a differentiator of the future too.

On average I tend to think Bob is right. But, ... it's only a tendency. |

|

Ed

treeman55 · Jul 8, 2009

elkcub said:
I've attached pg 4, which includes the 7x35 Neptune.

Ed

Hi Ed,
I would like to see the catalog page (if you have it) that describes the Holiday Mkll since that is the binocular that originally got me interested in the Swifts.
Thanks,
Dennis

Historical Review of Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Member

Silicon Valley, California

Member

Member

Silicon Valley, California

Member

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Attachments

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread