• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Still using your HR/5? (1 Viewer)

jaymoynihan

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Thought i would post in this so quiet group.
Anyone still using their Audubon 8.5x44 HR/5's or any of the other pre-armoring versions of this glass?
 
Yes. I still use mine on occasion; I don't have the 804. It is a bit bulkier than I like and I find that I can focus it better with my thumb under the the binocular rather than with my index finger on top. The wider your IPD is on this binocular the wider the binocular gets. It has a very friendly and very wide view. I like the roof prism version too (828) and use it as my car binocular. If I remember correctly it uses the same oculars and objectives as the porro. The view through these is not as spectacular but it's ergonomics are outstanding.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Oh, yes, I still use my 804R, HR/5 804, and HR/5 804ED — particularly the ED. Although the 804s are still the easiest on my eye, the 8x30 SLC, 8x32 LXL and 7x42 BGAT*P get more attention. Simply put, I own far too many binoculars.

Ed
 
... If I remember correctly it uses the same oculars and objectives as the porro. The view through these is not as spectacular but it's ergonomics are outstanding.

Bob

Hmmm. I'd question that recollection, Bob. Remember that the roof is internally focused and has a comparatively narrow FOV. Otherwise, I agree that it's a good and rugged binocular.

Ed
 
Hmmm. I'd question that recollection, Bob. Remember that the roof is internally focused and has a comparatively narrow FOV. Otherwise, I agree that it's a good and rugged binocular.

Ed

Ed,

I might have seen it in their web site. I think they said that they used the same optical system or something like that.

OK I found it:

See my comment at #2 in the link here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=207301

They used the term "renowned 8.5 x 44 optical formula...." I got the info about the eyepieces from the Eagle Optics website. No, let me correct that. I got the ocular info from the Swift website:

http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/binoculars.html

Bob
 
Last edited:
Ed,

I might have seen it in their web site. I think they said that they used the same optical system or something like that.

OK I found it:

See my comment at #2 in the link here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=207301

They used the term "renowned 8.5 x 44 optical formula...." I got the info about the eyepieces from the Eagle Optics website. No, let me correct that. I got the ocular info from the Swift website:

http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/binoculars.html

Bob

Every time Swift changed the Audubon package from the original four large body types to the small body R, HR/5, ED then into the various roof models and finally the 820 and 820ED, they maintained that Audubons used the same "optical formula." To an optician that would probably mean that the glass, apertures, lens curvatures, and spacings remained the same — but I don't think that was strictly true. More likely the 8.5x44 designation and the 5-element eyepiece were the primary constants. FOV changed from time to time. Keep in mind that there were also 7x35 and 10x50 Audubons, which clearly didn't have the same optical formula in any sense that I can figure out.

In the case of the eyepieces I think they're just talking about 5-element Erfle designs, not that they are interchangeable.

Ed
 
Still using my MC 804 H/R5, though mostly for stargazing. The 804 Audubon has the least astigmatism of any eightish power bin I've tried. Stars are tight pinpoints and even bright stars show no flaring. The edges are also quite good for a wide field bin.

Brock
 

Attachments

  • Swift 804 MC Audubon and case 003.jpg
    Swift 804 MC Audubon and case 003.jpg
    185.1 KB · Views: 387
  • Swift 804 MC Audubon and case 005.jpg
    Swift 804 MC Audubon and case 005.jpg
    202.5 KB · Views: 386
Last edited:
Hi Brock,

What is the s/n of your MC 804? Mine is 950681 (i.e., made in 1995). The coatings are distinctly green.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Hi Brock,

What is the s/n of your MC 804? Mine is 950681 (i.e., made in 1995). The coatings are distinctly green.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

These were made in 1991. Green and magenta colored coatings on EPs and objectives.

I also had three FMC 804s (one was the ED version). They showed improved color saturation, contrast and brightness, and more neutral color, but smaller sweet spots and more pincushion.

Panning with the MC 804 is smooth and comfortable due to moderate level of pincushion and good edges. The FMC 804s exhibited the "Funhouse Effect" while panning, and my eyes darted ahead into the "zone of unknowingness".

An curious thing is that the EPs in the two non-ED FMC versions had different characteristics. One sample was sharper on axis but had a higher level of pincushion and field curvature. The other had better edges, though not as good as the MC 804 and less pincushion than the other FMC sample but not as low as the MC version. I had both samples at the same time, so this was an A/B comparison.

The ED version had the smallest sweet spot, in the shape of a vertical slit. The end stars in Orion's Belt could not fit horizontally in the "sweet slit" and the belt covers only 3* of the sky! I had to turn the bin on its side to get both end stars in view at the same time.

My first 804 was a MC version, with the same performance characteristics as my present sample. I sold it to buy the FMC version, thinking I'd be upgrading.

The FMC 804 was an upgrade in the sense of being a bit sharper, brighter and more contrasty, but the trade-offs in higher distortion and field curvature were not worth it for me.

Not sure why Swift redesigned the EPs in the FMC version this way. If they had kept the good edges and lower distortion and just added FMC, they would have been great birding and astro bins.

The higher distortions in the FMC version also compromised the "ease of view" of the MC 804.

I had the MC 804s out for a spin at lunch and that ease of view is what strikes me as I panned the landscape. Very sharp and comfortable views. One of the great Classic porros.

Brock
 
Brock,

I came to the conclusion some time ago that there were either several variants of MC, or that some FMCs were given older MC cover plates. Mine, I think, was one of the latter. It is without question quite different from the 804R, which is MC. The Pyser version of the 804 HR/5 also appeared in the UK several years before the US introduction of the 804R in 1985, which confuses matters considerably, but I think the coatings were the same as the 804R. I can't unscramble the egg.

Henry could speculate better than me about possible reasons for your observed differences in optical aberrations, such as curvature and distortion. I know you're a keen observer, but I seriously doubt that Swift (er, Hiyoshi Kogaku) would have introduced them deliberately by design. More likely they were due to glass, optical grinding, or assembly variations, or being out of calibration.

Having said that, my 804R, HR/5 MC, and 804ED are all different from one another, even though they were each serviced by Nicolas Crista. The differences are within my range of adaptation, however, so none of them is a problem. I prefer the ED because of the color gradations that it alone allows me to see.

Ed
BTW. It's an honor to be quoted by you.
 
Last edited:
I have a rough pair in the car plus a coated and FMC version in my collection.
I have also just bought a 10x50 Audubon Kestrel too.
 
Brock,

I came to the conclusion some time ago that there were either several variants of MC, or that some FMCs were given older MC cover plates. Mine, I think, was one of the latter. It is without question quite different from the 804R, which is MC. The Pyser version of the 804 HR/5 also appeared in the UK several years before the US introduction of the 804R in 1985, which confuses matters considerably, but I think the coatings were the same as the 804R. I can't unscramble the egg.

Henry could speculate better than me about possible reasons for your observed differences in optical aberrations, such as curvature and distortion. I know you're a keen observer, but I seriously doubt that Swift (er, Hiyoshi Kogaku) would have introduced them deliberately by design. More likely they were due to glass, optical grinding, or assembly variations, or being out of calibration.

Having said that, my 804R, HR/5 MC, and 804ED are all different from one another, even though they were each serviced by Nicolas Crista. The differences are within my range of adaptation, however, so none of them is a problem. I prefer the ED because of the color gradations that it alone allows me to see.

Ed
BTW. It's an honor to be quoted by you.

Henry doesn't speculate.

I'm honored that that you're honored that I used your quote in my signature. It encapsulated my entire argument against extremist empiricism that removes the "human element" from the "equation".

Today, I came upon an "oldie but goodie" aphorism, which I gave a twist to make the point in another way.

Thanks for loaning me your quote!

Brock
 
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.
Albert Einstein

It's a conundrum that applies to economics, politics, and science.

Ed
 
But, in Henry's defense,

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
Mark Twain

Ed :-O
 
My 10x50 arrived today.
Love them

Simon,

I hope you enjoy them. I have several 10x instruments, but I really like these the most. Simply outstanding optics.

What is the s/n on yours? Mine is the later FMC version, which is marked "Kestrel" because the Audubon Society apparently put up a fuss.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Kestrel 10x50.jpg
    Kestrel 10x50.jpg
    79.5 KB · Views: 217
Last edited:
Hi ED thanks for the info Re the Kestrel badge. Ser no is 922138. Yet to try them as the weather is dull and misty.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top