820-Audubon 8.5x44 Non-ED, questions (1 Viewer)

How is the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 (Non-ED) ? Compared to say a Nikon Monarch?

In England I can have the Nikon 8x30 EII at about the same price as the Swift, but I want to use the binocular in the woods as well, where it can be a bit darker, especially in the hour before the sun goes down.
In terms of brightness how is the difference between the Nikon and the Swift?
(Or are the EII just superior in every way?)

Carsten

keithdrengen said:

How is the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 (Non-ED) ? Compared to say a Nikon Monarch?

In England I can have the Nikon 8x30 EII at about the same price as the Swift, but I want to use the binocular in the woods as well, where it can be a bit darker, especially in the hour before the sun goes down.
In terms of brightness how is the difference between the Nikon and the Swift?
(Or are the EII just superior in every way?)

Carsten

Click to expand...

I've owned both and would take the EIIs every time. Wider field of view, far lighter and less bulky, and the difference in light gathering will be evident for at most 2 minutes of that last hour before dark.

Go for the E2.

Assuming you don't need glasses both have marginal ER (AFAICT, not used either though I'd love to own both apart from this ER problem )

See

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1351961&postcount=14

Other points:

The Swift is waterproof (so it's said). The E2 isn't.

The Swift is current. The E2 isn't.

Handling and weight is very different: little and large.

In general unless you can get your eye's pupil wider than 3.5mm in birdwatching light you won't see a difference. In really crepuscular light (owl watching past sunset or perhaps twilight in the woods) the Audubon might win depending on your eyes. You could measure it in any given lighting with a digital camera with flash and ruler.

If you were going for the Swift you should perhaps consider the ED version.

Against the Monarch (you mention both Monarch and E2) the Swift (and E2) would be sharper, more contasty, bigger 3D effect. All the usual porro vs roof differences. It would be easily noticeable.

The Swifts are good too.

Get both!

The Swift Audubon gives 8.5X magnification,the EII gives 8X...Both being very sharp glasses..This and the added extra brightness would make the Audubon's to resolve more detail.The price being added bulk and weight

Swift HHS Model 828 Audubon

keithdrengen said:

How is the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 (Non-ED) ? Compared to say a Nikon Monarch?

In England I can have the Nikon 8x30 EII at about the same price as the Swift, but I want to use the binocular in the woods as well, where it can be a bit darker, especially in the hour before the sun goes down.
In terms of brightness how is the difference between the Nikon and the Swift?
(Or are the EII just superior in every way?)

Carsten

Click to expand...

Carsten,

I would strongly recommend that you look at the Swift HHS Model 828 Audubon, which is an outstanding waterproof binocular currently in production.
http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/products/binoculars/828

In direct comparison with the standard (Non-ED) 820 I like it much more, and it arguably outperforms the Monarch. The Nikon 8x30 EII is optically outstanding, but it is currently out of production, doesn't like water, and in my opinion is not as robust. Finally, the HHS Audubon has excellent eye relief, focuses under ten feet, and works very well with or without spectacles.

Ed

PS. Make sure to look for the most recent version that has a (left barrel) diopter control integrated with the central focus. It retails in the US for about $350.

How is internal fogging in the Nikon E2, at the eyepieces? I mean sometimes your bodyheat can fog the eyepiece, even in "normal" weather.
Carsten

keithdrengen said:

How is internal fogging in the Nikon E2, at the eyepieces? I mean sometimes your bodyheat can fog the eyepiece, even in "normal" weather.
Carsten

Click to expand...

I posted this on another thread:

"In years of using Es, EIIs and SEs, I've had exactly one fogging incident. I live in south Florida, where we get 60" of rain a year, have high to very high humidity much of the year, and I'm often wading while I hunt or birdwatch. In that instance, I had my EIIs out in a torrential rain on a swamp buggy and was quite careless about covering them up. Had I been careful about keeping the rain guard on or tucking them inside a jacket (part of the problem--I was caught without a jacket) they would not have fogged. I got soaked enough that afternoon that my wallet was completely waterlogged and had to be emptied and dried. A couple of days in a warm, dry place and the fogging was gone.

These bins will not fog unless they really get wet. Reasonable care is enough."

For some reason the idea has taken hold that binoculars must be completely waterproof to be field worthy. It's a selling point for the manufacturers, I know, but it's nonsense. These bins give brilliant views, and what's more I've never had a pair go out of collimation or be otherwise damaged in lots of field use. I've dropped them in the swamp, dropped them in and out of the swamp buggy, banged them against trees and barbed wire fences, carried them everywhere jammed in my hydration pack with my other gear, and never had a lick of trouble. I used to carry a ziplok bag for them in case of a bad downpour, but found that that wasn't necessary. They're not water soluble, and getting them wet on the outside doesn't affect a thing. If you let water stand inside the oculars for very long, some of it will get inside and you'll have fogging. If you give them a prolonged dunk or clean them off with your garden hose, they will fog. If you keep the rain guard in place, which you would do with any waterproof binocular anyway, they won't fog.

I haven't used every good bin out there, but I've used the Swaro 10x42 SLCs, Zeiss Victory 8x42 and Classic 10x42's, and I own (for now) a pair of Zeiss 8x32 FLs. None of them match the view I get through the SEs, and that's worth a little care now and then.

All I can say is that I have one of the original (year wise) ED's and I love them. Don't know the Nikon's so I'm sorry I can't help you compare.
Part of it is I like a porro vs. a roof which always seemed cramped to me even though I'm a woman with theoretically small hands. I find I tend to clutch roofs with a death grip ...also I prefer having my hands/arms wider apart stance wise (I am rather, ah hem, busty

Marys1000 said:

All I can say is that I have one of the original (year wise) ED's and I love them. Don't know the Nikon's so I'm sorry I can't help you compare.
Part of it is I like a porro vs. a roof which always seemed cramped to me even though I'm a woman with theoretically small hands. I find I tend to clutch roofs with a death grip ...also I prefer having my hands/arms wider apart stance wise (I am rather, ah hem, busty

Click to expand...

Now, I'd like to know how the advertising departments at Swift, Nikon etc. have failed to capitalize on this feature of their porro bins.

Haha!
Seriously though you would think that men, with their bigger size, broader across the beam and all, would prefer having a wider bin, as well as something larger to hold onto. I've also noticed that roof's seem longer, and since I'm shortish with a short waist roof's just seem to hang in a way I don't like.

Marys1000 said:

Haha!
Seriously though you would think that men, with their bigger size, broader across the beam and all, would prefer having a wider bin, as well as something larger to hold onto. I've also noticed that roof's seem longer, and since I'm shortish with a short waist roof's just seem to hang in a way I don't like.

Click to expand...

Hello Marys1000,

There are a lot of men, with small hands, who are shortish. In fact, I resemble that remark. The men in my family have narrow wrists which makes buying watchbands, a custom project.

However, aside from Inter Pupillary Distance, I would guess that there is as much variation within a sex as between sexes. Fortunately, I seem to fall within the design parameters for the general population, although I need a glass with a 58 mm IPD, and have never found a binocular's ergonomics to be off putting.

The older Audubon ED are optically superior to the current ones with a glass spaced ojective. Also the bridge is solid without the flexing of the current model.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:

Marys1000 said:

Haha!
Seriously though you would think that men, with their bigger size, broader across the beam and all, would prefer having a wider bin, as well as something larger to hold onto. I've also noticed that roof's seem longer, and since I'm shortish with a short waist roof's just seem to hang in a way I don't like.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an ad campaign that just writes itself!

And seriously, I do find that my hands are much less comfortable hanging on to a pair of small-diameter roofs. They're light and compact and all that, but I can look through a good pair of porros all day without my hands getting tired.