• 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.

Swift 804 Audubon Binoculars - A Beginner's Experience (1 Viewer)

Hi Bob,

I know how you feel about the Nikon SEs, how do the 804s compare with the SE? Are they close to the same power for apples to apples?

After reading this whole thread from the beginning, I'm dying to know what happened with downunder, did he get his bins? How did he like them? It's a real cliff hanger.
John
 
Hi Ed, Thanks for your advice on which Type 4 to seek. This prompted me to revisit your sagacious saga on the history of the Swift Audubon and its technical intricacies, as well as its eccentricities. Some of the scientific stuff was beyond me but, to misquote Lord Birkenhead, "I may not be much the wiser but I'm certainly better informed". Basically, if you own one of the older 804s, like your Type 1c (by Tamron, one of my favourite lens makers) or my Type 3b (Hiyoshi) you've got a solid, reliable binocular, easy on the eyes, with respectable optical quality. If you want something smaller, lighter and sharper, look for a Type 4 with 'HR/5' and 'Fully Multi-coated' on it, preferably with an opportunity to inspect/handle it to ensure its integrity/condition. Over-simplified perhaps, but sufficient as a 'rule of thumb'? And, if you can find one and afford it, grab an 804ED... Jim.
 
...
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

Bob,

When sitting in the palm of one or both hands, the focus wheel on a Type 4 Audubon can be operated quite naturally from below with one or both thumbs. My hand length measures 18 cm (from heel to middle finger tip), which is in the center of the population distribution. I can still operate it this way even when the IPD is spread to 68 mm, so you might wish to give the technique a try. This is one of the hidden ergonomic marvels of the 804's design.

The ED version is better than the standard, but, unfortunately, there are not enough of them to go around. I'm also afraid that many have been compromised by improper repair. So, if purchased, one should plan on having it reconditioned by Nicolas Crista. http://www.nrcoptics.com A small price for such superb optics.

Having briefly interviewed Swift management after our Audubon review appeared in 2005, my distinct impression was that they spent a fair amount of time in the early days selecting or refining products being proposed by their Japanese manufacturers. Apparently, one of these proposals was the 804ED, which looked like the standard model but involved several costly changes that were reflected in a much higher retail price. It ultimately marketed for nearly twice that of the standard model, but the standard was so good that even Steve Ingraham found himself questioning the additional cost. I'm sorry he did that since it may have inadvertently contributed to limiting sales and a full appreciation of this remarkable optic.

Regards,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Audubon

Good day to everybody.
Advice please:- Is it possible to replace the rubbers
on the eyepieces of the Audubon binoculars? Or for that
matter,any of the Swift range of bino's

Kindest regards,
young Ian.
 
Good day to everybody.
Advice please:- Is it possible to replace the rubbers
on the eyepieces of the Audubon binoculars? Or for that
matter,any of the Swift range of bino's

Kindest regards,
young Ian.

Hello Ian,

In the US I'd contact Nicolas Crista (see above), but he uses his parts stock for repair jobs and not direct sales. In England/Europe you might contact Pyser, Ltd., who still distributes Swift products as far as I know. I don't have their address. There is a Swift International in The Netherlands that might also help.

As a last resort you might try the new Swift Sport Optics http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/, but they don't seem to have much to do with the older Swift Instruments products.

Best of luck, but please let us know how it works out.
Ed
 
Yes, Ed, I've got IT... Well, I hope to have tomorrow, when my Swift HR/5 FMC Kestrel 10x50 'in perfect condition' is due to arrive. I came to the conclusion that waiting for a rare 804ED is a forlorn hope, and I'm not getting any younger. So, having again referred to your 2004 assessment of the Kestrel, which at the time you ranked as your binocular of choice (subsequently overtaken by the 804ED) I decided "that'll do for me".
Incidentally, on your assumption that 'HR' = 'High Resolution', but there was no proof of this, there may be some comfort in the Swift 7.5x42 Osprey actually having these words on the right-hand plate (in red); not conclusive evidence perhaps, but persuasive? Jim.
 
Jim,

Outstanding choice. Outstanding! Now, of course, you must reveal the first two digits of the s/n, just to see if it's older or younger than Renze' or mine. I put my Kestrel through it's paces at Shoreline Nature Preserve just last week, so I doubt that you'll be disappointed. (Someone mentioned they were selling their Kestrel on BF recently. Is that the one?)

The Osprey. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a color picture of Swift-Pyser's 1985 model 102-091 Osprey that says "High Resolution" in red (when I turn it upside down). Unfortunately, the 1985 Swift USA catalog also says their model 754 Osprey uses "...new BPG-2" prism material" that "give this binocular the eyes of a hawk." It seems the Osprey is a quite different optical design than the Audubon. So, it remains elusive. :flyaway:

Ed
 
Hello Ian,

In the US I'd contact Nicolas Crista (see above), but he uses his parts stock for repair jobs and not direct sales. In England/Europe you might contact Pyser, Ltd., who still distributes Swift products as far as I know. I don't have their address. There is a Swift International in The Netherlands that might also help.

As a last resort you might try the new Swift Sport Optics http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/, but they don't seem to have much to do with the older Swift Instruments products.

Best of luck, but please let us know how it works out.
Ed


Hello Ed.
Thank you so much for your observations and quick
response. I have been offered a pair of Audubons (which I
need like a bullet in the head as I already have a super pair
of them) sadly one of the eyepiece rubbers have split.
My first binoculars, 35yr ago, were some Saratogas,
which I still use from time to time. To make them more
comfortable I made my own rubber eyepieces. Very successful
they are too. They being made out of an old cycle inner tube,
cut to size i.e. 2" in length, threaded over the hard eyepiece
and folded back on it's self about three times to form the
'cushion' effect. Still going strong after all that time! I suppose
I could give that another go.

Most kindest regards Ed
young Ian.
 
I have just bought a nice pair of 804's and can't wait to receive them. I have a well used pair but a good pair is better.
 
Ed, First impressions of Kestrel. As new, in box, with case, straps, & lens caps; number 001912, with label on box dated 30/11/2000. I'm surprised it's more or less the same size as my Audubon 804(3b): not as 'fat', but slightly longer (being a 10x50) and much bigger than my similar-shape, 8x32 SP. View is clear and a bit sharper than my 3b, with deeper colours, but image is not as 'big' as the 3b which has larger oculars and gives an 'easier', restful view. If I had to choose between these two, it would be difficult; but if I had to settle for only one binocular from my collection, then my Zeiss Jena 8x50 BGA Octarem would win. Nevertheless, the Audubon 804(3b) still has the most relaxing view I've seen. Happily, I can keep 'em all ! I stress these are only my first impressions... Jim.
 
Jim,

Congrats on finding a brand new Kestrel. Year 2000 may have been the last date of issue, so it's a collector's item as well as a rare find. Let's hear more after you do some birding with it. :t:

Ed
 
Further to my Kestrel 10x50 acquisition, I've been comparing it with my Zeiss Jena 8x50 Octarem, just for fun. I re-read Holger Merlitz's reviews, with particular reference to the Kestrel this time, and note he commented "...it does not reach the performance level of the Docter Nobilem" (Nobilem 10x50, sister model of Nobilem/Octarem 8x50); nor was it
"reaching the outer-field sharpness of high-end devices like Nobilem" (Kestrel sharp out to 70% of field, compared with 80% for the Nobilem/Octarem). I'm not trying to belittle the Kestrel; far from it, it's an excellent binocular. It's just that, comparing one with the other (as you do) I was finding it difficult to determine which is 'better', the 21 year old Octarem (1987) or the 8 year old Kestrel (2000). On balance (and before I'd read again
the Holger Merlitz reviews) I'd decided the Octarem 'just had the edge' and so remained the 'reference standard' (for my eyes). I now also have a 1998 Swift Audubon HR/5 FMC (430' field/1,000 yds) and have compared it with my 1984 big-body 3b Audubon (445'). I have to say that, whilst the HR5 is slightly sharper and renders deeper colours, just like the Kestrel, it likewise doesn't have the 'big relaxed view' of the old big-body 3b, which also has superior build quality. I realise that 'big bins' are not fashionable nowadays and anything over 700g is regarded as 'heavy', but I truly prefer the bulk and solidity of the older models, which seem to fit my (medium) hands better, strangely enough, and give a steadier view. That's probably why I like my Leicaflex SL camera so much (big & heavy!) although my favourite camera for many years was the Pentax ME (small & light). Anyway, as Kevin Arnold in 'The Wonder Years' would say, "...so there you have it".
 
Ed, In #58 you mentioned your 1c, now "used for veneration purpose only". I forgot to ask you, why? I like the look of this last Tamron model, J-E45/J-B26 and you were quite impressed by the view. Is it because the image quality isn't as good as your 4b(2) & ED, or is it just the big body? Cosmetically, it looks handsome and 'classic' old style. Jim.
 
Jim,

Many thanks for your insightful comparisons. It seems like you're having a lot of fun. Holger's evaluations are always first class, of course, and he has much more experience with military optimized instruments. However, so far I have not been able to confirm a stray light problem with my Kestrel, particularly under daylight conditions. His specimen appears to be identical to mine, except for the liquid color of his oculars, which I would have expected to appear as dark green. Maybe it's the camera flash he used, or ... who knows? Overall, though, he says:

Altogether, [the Kestrel] does not reach the performance level of the Fujinon FMTR-SX and the Docter Nobilem, but it may be regarded as a legitimate, in optical performance and handling improved successor of the Zeiss Jenoptem/Dekarem, and it comes with a reasonable price-tag.

That's not too bad an endorsement, I gather, never having seen a Fujinon FMTR-SX, Docter Nobilem, or Zeiss Jenoptem/Dekarem, which apparently have less reasonable price tags. Renze de Vries knows a lot more than I do about Zeiss optics, so he may chime in. (Next week, he's on vacation.) Also, when Holger mentions 'performance level' he includes several things I don't give a lot of weight to.

What I have found is that the Swift FMC models (i.e., Type 4, HR/5) really do provide brighter images with possibly greater color contrast. The experience is, as you say, "deeper colours." So, for me, the Type 1c is not only larger and bulkier but also (forgive the expression) more 'washed out' than the 4b,c. I assume this is due to more internal light scatter, even under daylight conditions, which suppresses color contrast. The other reason for keeping my 1c on the pedestal, I admit, is just because it is the progenitor of the species. :t:

Regards,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Hi Ed, I was simply trying to explain why I like the Octarem/Nobilem & older Audubon so much... Holger Merlitz had the answer (at least for me): "the most relaxing kind of view". I have found this (from my own personal experience) to be the most important criterion. There's no substitute for 'the big easy' in assessing quality of view. Other attributes like sharpness, contrast, and colour fidelity play their part but, as a German acquaintance of mine once said, the main thing "is a 'good look', yah?" I'm not technically qualified to say what it is, 'scientifically', that makes a look through one bin' better than another: all I do know is (for me) the Octarem and big-body Audubon both have 'it'. The Kestrel & 4b(2) have lovely views yet, for some reason I can't adequately explain, they don't quite have the 'reach out and touch' images of the Octarem and big-body Audubon. Perhaps others may be able to elucidate? Or is it a case of "I don't know why, but I know what I like!" ?
As to comparisons with other optics, the Octarem/Nobilem are considered to be the best binoculars ever made in East Germany; they were more than twice the price of the other Jenoptem/Dekarem line. Oh, and in 1995 the price of the Nobilem 8x50 BGA was £4 more than the Swift 804 ED, which gives some idea of the perceived quality of these premium products. Coming back to the Audubon 1c, I really like the look of it, and would expect it to have the 'big view' of the much later 3b, since the specifications are similar... Finally, I can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but my 3b has a black-metal focus wheel, rather than rubber covered. I prefer the metal to the rubber, as it gives a better grip. Regards, Jim.
 
As usual, Jim, an interesting discussion. I mentioned somewhere above that Types 2/3 have eyecups that are just too large for my face. So, I envy your anatomical advantage.

Blue skies,
Ed
 
As usual, Jim, an interesting discussion. I mentioned somewhere above that Types 2/3 have eyecups that are just too large for my face. So, I envy your anatomical advantage.

Blue skies,
Ed
I have the same problem but removing the rubber cups solves the problem and eye relief seems fine.
 
Hi Ed, me again. I've just acquired a 1969 Swift Audubon 1c described as 'mint' and hope to receive it early next week. From your historical review of 804s it would appear to be one of the last Tamron models. While I await delivery I propose constructing a suitable pedestal: how high do you reckon it should be? Another Swift which interests me is the 8x30 Hunter with 'Quintar' objectives (whereas the 1c has 'Ultrar') so in all likelihood is a Tamron product too, from about the same era. The Hunter seems to have a unique body shape, quite unlike other Swifts, with a line drawing of a 'pointer' or hunting dog on the right prism plate. Not too sure how good the optics would be compared with the 1c, but if it's a Tamron then it's fine by me. I'm expecting great things of the 1c: what I'd term an 'ABCD' binocular (Above & Beyond the Call of Duty). But I really must stop buying...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top