Still using your HR/5? (1 Viewer)

rmcconachy · Dec 4, 2011

G'day Wes,

Where there are Swift binoculars being discussed I will probably be floating around (usually reading rather than posting). I like the 804ED very much. With luck I might this week even get the required combination of clear skies, not being tired and not having to get up early the following morning to properly answer Ed's question `Do you feel that the 804ED has a small "sweet spot"?' My preliminary answer is that the sweet spot in my particular 804ED might be a little bit smaller than in my father's 804FMC (and my two 826MC binoculars) but not hugely so. I want to do some more astronomical observing with all of them before I am confident though.

brocknroller · Dec 5, 2011

rmcconachy said:
G'day Wes,

Where there are Swift binoculars being discussed I will probably be floating around (usually reading rather than posting). I like the 804ED very much. With luck I might this week even get the required combination of clear skies, not being tired and not having to get up early the following morning to properly answer Ed's question `Do you feel that the 804ED has a small "sweet spot"?' My preliminary answer is that the sweet spot in my particular 804ED might be a little bit smaller than in my father's 804FMC (and my two 826MC binoculars) but not hugely so. I want to do some more astronomical observing with all of them before I am confident though.

So you finally got an 804 ED! Hope it wasn't the same one I bought that was falling apart mechanically. Doesn't sound like it from your description of the sweet spot, which was narrow and lopsided.

I couldn't fit the two end stars in Orion's belt in the sweet spot horizontally, and they are are spaced less than 3* apart. I could fit them in the sweet spot vertically if I turned the bin on its side, because the sweet spot was "wider" vertically than horizontally.

My FMC 804s were better, about 55-60% to the edge in star tests, though one suffered from a lot of pincushion so the the edges were very distorted, but it had the best centerfield resolution of the five 804 samples I bought.

My two MC 804s had the best edges, a solid 75% (I can center one of the end stars in the belt and get the other one in sharp focus at the edge with some room to spare, so the sweet spot spans at least 6*, more than twice as wide as the ED version). Beyond 75%, coma becomes noticeable.

Very low astigmatism in the MC version, stars are sharp pinpoints in the sweet spot. Wish I could find a FMC 804 with as good edges as the MCs for my bright night skies, but after three samples that doesn't seem likely since they apparently redesigned the EPs in the FMC version.

The best I could do was make a hybrid of the MC EPs and the ED's objectives. Texas Nautical said they would try it, but due to the longer FL of the ED model (or at least it looked longer, perhaps the objectives were merely more recessed), and the slightly shorter ER EPs, I'm not sure if a hybrid would have worked unless they created a "shim" to align the optics properly.

What might work w/out much fuss is replacing the MC objectives with FMC objectives. I might try that if I can find another FMC 804.

Brock

rmcconachy · Dec 14, 2011

I snuck out to an airfield on the fringes of town this evening for a little stargazing between astronomical twilight and the Moon rising. I took three Swift binoculars with me - one of my 826MC glasses, my 804ED and my father's 804FMC - although I spent most of my time alternating between the two smaller binoculars. The sweet spot on all three seems to be circular. While there isn't much in it, off axis aberrations grow very slightly more quickly in the 804ED than in the 804FMC, consequently the ED has a very slightly smaller sweet spot than its FMC sibling.

Following Brock's lead, if I place the central star in Orion's belt in the middle of the FOV the two end stars (~1.4° off axis) are still in very good but not quite perfect focus. If I place one of the end stars in the belt in the middle of the FOV then the other end star (~2.8° off axis) is bloated. For my taste, I'd call the sweet spot of my 804ED the area within ~2° of the center of the FOV. I would say that the sweet spot in my father's 804FMC is very similar to Brock's 804FMC samples, the area within ~2.25°-2.5° of the center of the FOV. I'm afraid neither of these 804s can match your two 804MC samples Brock - hang on to them or sell one to me! |;| Interestingly, neither can the 826MC I took with me which displays very similar performance to the two 804s (as a percentage of the FOV).

Were the HR/5 eyepieces redesigned between the MC and FMC years (mid/late 1990s)? Can you shed any light on this please Ed or Renze? Holding an 826MC (1993) and a 804FMC (1999) under a bright light and looking at the reflections from the eyepieces of each at various angles the only difference I can spot is in the colors. The 804FMC reflections are all green or white while some of the reflections in the 826MC are purple. However, all of the reflections seem to be in the same places and move in the same ways to my eye. If these two eyepieces are different then the changes are pretty subtle. I'd always (naively?) assumed that the only difference between the later MC and FMC Audubons was the coatings on some of the elements, am I wrong? I'd be willing to put the differences in sweet spot size between the four Swift Audubons I have access to down to nothing more than sample variation. Brock, if you want to send me one of your gun 804MCs I promise to give it a lengthy test while I try to figure out why it outpaces its siblings! |

|

elkcub · Dec 14, 2011

rmcconachy said:
...
Were the HR/5 eyepieces redesigned between the MC and FMC years (mid/late 1990s)? Can you shed any light on this please Ed or Renze? Holding an 826MC (1993) and a 804FMC (1999) under a bright light and looking at the reflections from the eyepieces of each at various angles the only difference I can spot is in the colors. The 804FMC reflections are all green or white while some of the reflections in the 826MC are purple. However, all of the reflections seem to be in the same places and move in the same ways to my eye. If these two eyepieces are different then the changes are pretty subtle. I'd always (naively?) assumed that the only difference between the later MC and FMC Audubons was the coatings on some of the elements, am I wrong? I'd be willing to put the differences in sweet spot size between the four Swift Audubons I have access to down to nothing more than sample variation. Brock, if you want to send me one of your gun 804MCs I promise to give it a lengthy test while I try to figure out why it outpaces its siblings! ||

Hi,

This is complicated. I believe the only differences in Model 804 optics from 1985 through 1999, when they were discontinued, were the coatings. The same would apply to Model 826.

By coincidence, my specimens are: 804 (1995) MC, 804ED (1993) FMC, and 826 (1999) FMC. Although the models are different from yours in each case, the coatings correspond exactly to your descriptions by year of manufacture. The MC coatings in my 1995 MC are quite different and much improved from those used in my original 804R (1985). Moreover, as mentioned in an earlier post, http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2299188&postcount=37 the first Swift-Pyser HR/5 504 MC (1985) was identical to the 804R sold in the US, and, therefore, equally different from later MC models. So, regarding Brock's 804 MCs, it makes a great deal of difference when they were made, since not all MCs were the same.

Frankly, it's implausible to me that monochromatic or chromatic aberrations differed between (non-ED) MC and FMC versions. All parts are physically interchangeable. Henry Link or Bill Cook know much more than I do here, but it may be that the differences are due to instrument alignment or assembly variations. Several of my specimens, for example, came back from Nicolas Crista very much improved (i.e., very different), so who knows what tweaking can accomplish. I also have lingering suspicions that coatings influence subtle visual discriminations; they certainly do in the laboratory. It's not too surprising that the 804ED is different, because it really is a different optical design (even though Swift still called it an HR/5).

Lastly, regarding Brock's efforts with his 804ED, the eyepieces are not interchangeable between the standard 804 and the 804ED. The latter was physically redesigned for waterproofing with o-rings, and, as he mentioned, the eyepieces have different focal lengths. The 804ED also had redesigned air spaced objectives, but some improper repairs were known to have been done by cementing the elements together. If you've still got them, Brock, send them off to Nicolas Crista who can analyze the problem.

As I said, it's complicated.

Regards,
Ed

rmcconachy · Dec 15, 2011

elkcub said:
... the eyepieces are not interchangeable between the standard 804 and the 804ED. The latter was physically redesigned for waterproofing with o-rings, and, as he mentioned, the eyepieces have different focal lengths. -- Ed

Thank you for your reply Ed. Regarding the 804ED oculars being of different focal length to those in the standard 804, the difference cannot be much. Placing my 804ED next to my father's 804FMC I'd wager that the prisms are the same and the barrels on the two binoculars only differ in length by a very small amount compared to the focal length of the objectives.

BTW, harking back to the sweet spot discussion, by day I do not notice any difference in sweet spot size between the two 804s. Nor does the image quality seem to fall off as quickly by day as it does by night. I imagine that is partly because stars (bright points) on a black background is a harsh test and partly because without my pupils being dilated both instruments are really working at more like 8.5x17 or 8.5x20 which effectively slows the focal ratio of the objectives. All four of the Swift binoculars my father and I own have been through Nicolas's hands but my eyes haven't (I have a couple of diopters of astigmatism in both eyes, my viewing last night was done with and without spectacles).

elkcub · Dec 15, 2011

Well, just thinking out loud, if the eyepieces could be exchanged between the 804 and 804ED there would be a net effect on magnification since: M = Fo/Fe = xFo/xFe. That is, both the objective and eyepiece have to change focal length by the same factor, x, to maintain a constant ratio.

Clearly, Fo/Fe ≠ Fo/xFe (unless x=1).

Of course, there's also a need to deal with mechanical differences due to the o-rings.

Ed

rmcconachy · Dec 15, 2011

I'm not disagreeing with you Ed, I just think (perhaps erroneously!) that in this particular case Fo ~= xFo and Fe ~= xFe. The mechanical differences are something else as you point out. BTW, how large do you think the sweet spot is in your Audubon 804s? Is there much variation between them (and even the 826)?

Thanks in advance!

elkcub · Dec 16, 2011

rmcconachy said:
I'm not disagreeing with you Ed, I just think (perhaps erroneously!) that in this particular case Fo ~= xFo and Fe ~= xFe. The mechanical differences are something else as you point out. BTW, how large do you think the sweet spot is in your Audubon 804s? Is there much variation between them (and even the 826)?

Thanks in advance!

Hi (name?),

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest a disagreement. I was just thinking that the configuration would change however small. Frankly, I've lost track of why one would want to interchange the components in the first place. |:S|

Anyway, I may have mentioned that I know just enough about scotopic visual performance to be really dangerous; but from what I know I don't expect that one instrument will ever be optimized simultaneously for both bird watching and star watching applications.

Others may think differently, but my brain fogs over when one assesses the so-called "sweet spot" for birding using astronomical observations with no consideration given to the adaptive state of the retina, the aberrations of the eye that come into play with large pupils, and the change in visual acuity. Some of this you've already mentioned. From reading CN posts now and again it would also seem that the value of multi-coatings can come into question for night observation, to say nothing about dark field myopia and other tricks the eye can play.

There I go musing again and making things complicated. But to answer your question about sweet spot sizes for the 804s (and the 826) under photopic birding conditions, if they differ they don't differ enough for me to perceive it. All in all, I'd estimate the sweet spot to be 75-80% of the field. Of course, the field is fairly generous, my habit is to center objects of interest, and for peripheral motion detection the extra 20% works quite well.

Regards,
Ed

angelo225544 · Jun 27, 2013

Thanks largely to Ed's, Simon's and Brock's detailed descriptions of the differences between the various 804s, I recently aquired a very nearly perfect HR/5 FMC (serial number 963335). To say I'm thrilled with their performance is an understatement. The central resolution is as good as I have seen at any price point. The wide FOV and 5mm exit pupil allow for relaxed long term viewing, although the eyecups are just average in comfort. I would be perfectly content to use this instrument for the rest of my days, and to think it cost under $200! I am a photographer by trade, and since I see no visible CA in the center of the image, I am very curious to know whether the ED version of the 804 provides an observably superior central resolution? If I understand it correctly, binocular CA is of the lateral variety, so correcting it might not necessarily increase central resolution (please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding). Thank you all again for the wealth of information you share...Angelo.

jaymoynihan · Jun 27, 2013

angelo225544 said:
I am very curious to know whether the ED version of the 804 provides an observably superior central resolution?

I have an HR/5, a 9 year old or so armored version and ED version from 9-10 years ago.
Yes, the ED version does, i feel, give a superior view, kind of a clarity/contrast thing. You may notice it in the shaded/shadow areas on a backlighted bird for instance.
The HR/5 though has the best feel in the hand and to my eye, of the three.

angelo225544 · Jun 27, 2013

jaymoynihan said:
I have an HR/5, a 9 year old or so armored version and ED version from 9-10 years ago.
Yes, the ED version does, i feel, give a superior view, kind of a clarity/contrast thing. You may notice it in the shaded/shadow areas on a backlighted bird for instance.
The HR/5 though has the best feel in the hand and to my eye, of the three.

Thank you, Jay. I appreciate your input. My only experience comparing a non- HD bin to its ED successor was the Leica Ultravid, and I must say I was underwhelmed by the difference. Most binoculars, including all Leica, Zeiss and Swift models have dramatic curvature of field, so maximum resolution is limited to a relatively small central area. Correcting for CA without also correcting for field curvature and other aberrations, as both Leica and Swift have done, has its greatest effect away from the image center, which is unsharp anyway. I would expect a very careful examination of central resolution to show no measurable improvement, while the noticeable decrease in CA in already less resolved areas "suggest" an improvement has been made to the entire image. I believe this is why Steven Ingraham was less than convinced the 804 ED was worth the added expense, in fact I don't believe he saw fit to assign a separate NEED score to the 804 ED. I reached the same conclusion with regard to the Ultravid HD.

jebe68 · Oct 22, 2023

Sorry to ruin the vibe here. But I recently made a very disappointing discovery. I found a 'as-new' HR5/fmc/ED ’93 804-model with the red rings around the objectives. It not only smelled new, but included the original cleaning cloth and neck strap still folded and unused.

I already owned a more common HR5 (MC) ’90 model which is also in very good condition (and a 10x50 Supreme + a Kestrel as well - fanboy?). To be honest, I enjoy to use the HR5 more than my Nikon 8x30 EII. So both HR5’s are on good condition, non-ED & ED, without haze etc. just a tiny few specks inside due to old age I guess. So I was eager to do a side-by-side.

The ED is indeed a tiny fraction higher when put straight with the objectives on the table. And it also has somewhat more weight.
But most importantly, looking through both, I immediately saw the ‘normal’ HR5 MC was brighter, 'fresher’, meaning: ED FMC seemed to be dimmer, and white surfaces in the ED are slightly more to the magenta, whereas the HR5 MC is slightly more to the yellow-greenish side. Hmm.
But the most shocking discovery moving between the two (both on a tripod on top of each other and pointing at the same object; a sunny city landscape with trees, darker houses with bright white window-frames at ±100m etc) was the fact that the ED had a softer image! meaning: less sharpness. Uh?
Also the ED’s sweet spot was narrower (and somewhat more shaped like a cat’s eye instead of round; something I’ve read here from another one with bad experience with the ED model 804). What a shock! At first I couldn’t believe it, as it was like new and perfectly collimated etc. So I checked again and again, tunneling light beams through it, looking for haze inside, or other imperfections, and checked sharpness again an again.

Of course I’ve read on this site some very problematic experiences with this ED model, so probably almost every(?!) Audubon is different no matter what it says on the outside?! Similar with the praised Kestrel, which is one of the last (10x50 Audubon Kestrel FMC - all written in blue letters) but strangely its edge sharpness declines faster than the older MC 8.5x44 in a direct side-by-side.
All in all severely disappointing. At first I even assumed the glorifying of the ED that I read here was being a big joke, after doing a side-by-side. But maybe I just have a perfect tuned ‘normal’ MC HR/5 that is just blowing away every competition. So despite people telling me to hold on to this valuable bino, I sold the ED again.

Sorry to say but this experience made me also angry of myself, spending endless nights reading the nerdy discussions about subjective quality experiences on the web. Not that I do not appreciate the input of the writers, on the contrary! And yes it could be true that the physicality of your eyes, their shape and their age, all must be taking into account as well. But at the end of the day, at the basis of these opinions and advices, we should have something honest to fall back on, don’t we?

Maybe this is a lesson for everybody that - unless you might be measuring things scientifically (like Allbino’s etc) - most of the writings here are way too subjective, at least to spent a lot of money on. Certainly when it comes to so called old and ‘legendary’ bino’s, even if they’re in immaculate state. Wow, lesson learned.

Ps besides the Audubon HR5 8.5x44, I also own a Swift Supreme10x50, Swift Audubon HR/5 FMC Kestrel 10x50, both Nikons EII’s (8x & 10x), Zeiss Terra 8x25, Hartmann 8x30 Compact (sold), Nikon 12x50 EX and a APM 100 semi-apo giant bino.

Paultricounty · Oct 22, 2023

jebe68 said:
Sorry to ruin the vibe here. But I recently made a very disappointing discovery. I found a 'as-new' HR5/fmc/ED ’93 804-model with the red rings around the objectives. It not only smelled new, but included the original cleaning cloth and neck strap still folded and unused.

I already owned a more common HR5 (MC) ’90 model which is also in very good condition (and a 10x50 Supreme + a Kestrel as well - fanboy?). To be honest, I enjoy to use the HR5 more than my Nikon 8x30 EII. So both HR5’s are on good condition, non-ED & ED, without haze etc. just a tiny few specks inside due to old age I guess. So I was eager to do a side-by-side.

The ED is indeed a tiny fraction higher when put straight with the objectives on the table. And it also has somewhat more weight.
But most importantly, looking through both, I immediately saw the ‘normal’ HR5 MC was brighter, 'fresher’, meaning: ED FMC seemed to be dimmer, and white surfaces in the ED are slightly more to the magenta, whereas the HR5 MC is slightly more to the yellow-greenish side. Hmm.
But the most shocking discovery moving between the two (both on a tripod on top of each other and pointing at the same object; a sunny city landscape with trees, darker houses with bright white window-frames at ±100m etc) was the fact that the ED had a softer image! meaning: less sharpness. Uh?
Also the ED’s sweet spot was narrower (and somewhat more shaped like a cat’s eye instead of round; something I’ve read here from another one with bad experience with the ED model 804). What a shock! At first I couldn’t believe it, as it was like new and perfectly collimated etc. So I checked again and again, tunneling light beams through it, looking for haze inside, or other imperfections, and checked sharpness again an again.

Of course I’ve read on this site some very problematic experiences with this ED model, so probably almost every(?!) Audubon is different no matter what it says on the outside?! Similar with the praised Kestrel, which is one of the last (10x50 Audubon Kestrel FMC - all written in blue letters) but strangely its edge sharpness declines faster than the older MC 8.5x44 in a direct side-by-side.
All in all severely disappointing. At first I even assumed the glorifying of the ED that I read here was being a big joke, after doing a side-by-side. But maybe I just have a perfect tuned ‘normal’ MC HR/5 that is just blowing away every competition. So despite people telling me to hold on to this valuable bino, I sold the ED again.

Sorry to say but this experience made me also angry of myself, spending endless nights reading the nerdy discussions about subjective quality experiences on the web. Not that I do not appreciate the input of the writers, on the contrary! And yes it could be true that the physicality of your eyes, their shape and their age, all must be taking into account as well. But at the end of the day, at the basis of these opinions and advices, we should have something honest to fall back on, don’t we?

Maybe this is a lesson for everybody that - unless you might be measuring things scientifically (like Allbino’s etc) - most of the writings here are way too subjective, at least to spent a lot of money on. Certainly when it comes to so called old and ‘legendary’ bino’s, even if they’re in immaculate state. Wow, lesson learned.

Ps besides the Audubon HR5 8.5x44, I also own a Swift Supreme10x50, Swift Audubon HR/5 FMC Kestrel 10x50, both Nikons EII’s (8x & 10x), Zeiss Terra 8x25, Hartmann 8x30 Compact (sold), Nikon 12x50 EX and a APM 100 semi-apo giant bino.

Jeb,
Could you post a few more pictures of the ED’s so we/I can see exactly which model it is? I have the whole line up staring from the early 804R MC to the last 820ED FMC. I’ve also tried over a dozen of these all side by side, and I have some of my own conclusions I can share on these.

Thank you
Paul

pat mitchel · Oct 22, 2023

Are they the same body? I'd be tempted to try a eyepiece/focuser changeover and take another cross check. Might the difference be in the eyepieces? Pat

jebe68 · Oct 23, 2023

Have sold the ED after disappointment, but still have these pictures

jebe68 · Oct 23, 2023

Paultricounty said:
Jeb,
Could you post a few more pictures of the ED’s so we/I can see exactly which model it is? I have the whole line up staring from the early 804R MC to the last 820ED FMC. I’ve also tried over a dozen of these all side by side, and I have some of my own conclusions I can share on these.

Thank you
Paul

And I am VERY curious about your findings, as I'm truly surprised by the difference between my (almost perfect) HR5 MC and its infamous HR5 FMC ED sibbling. So please share if you could. Thank you in advance.

Patudo · Oct 23, 2023

Sorry to hear the ED Audubon disappointed you - it's always a shame when a highly rated binocular for some reason or another just doesn't work for you. But it does happen. Pinewood has mentioned that he could not get along with the highly rated Nikon 8x32 SE, and I found the 8x30 EII for all its cult status did not work for me (awkward combo of insufficient eye relief forcing me to view without glasses, and insufficient focus beyond infinity to compensate for my lack of glasses). I suppose that is just the risk one takes if buying binoculars without being able to try them out.

Sample variation is also a thing. One of this forum's resident experts has said that:

...This puts not only a comparison of two binoculars of similar design and performance on the border of impractical and foolish (stacking BBs), it makes the comparison of two binoculars of the same model—produced on the same day—impractical and foolish as well, at least to the level so many on these forums want it to be.

It may therefore be that another example of the ED might be better. But given your previous experience, and especially that you're happy with your current Audubon, why bother? Maybe your multi-coated Audubon is that rare and highly desired thing, a "cherry".

jebe68 said:
the praised Kestrel, which is one of the last (10x50 Audubon Kestrel FMC - all written in blue letters) but strangely its edge sharpness declines faster than the older MC 8.5x44 in a direct side-by-side.

This definitely happens with other brands/models. For instance my Zeiss West 8x30 has a larger sweet spot/better edge performance than the 10x50 of the same stable.

Still, I guess our journey of discovery in binoculars continues. Enjoy your Audubon and if you're ever visiting London it would be really interesting to meet up and try our different binoculars!

Paultricounty · Oct 23, 2023

jebe68 said:
And I am VERY curious about your findings, as I'm truly surprised by the difference between my (almost perfect) HR5 MC and its infamous HR5 FMC ED sibbling. So please share if you could. Thank you in advance.

There seems to be a lot going on here with Swift and with the 804R, 804/HR5, MC, FMC and ED versions. I’ve tried two of these specific models , which do appear to be the same ones you had , only difference is where the ED lettering is placed on the prism plate. The interesting part is that if you notice on yours, it has the more purple reddish coating on the ocular, whereas mine in the picture has the greenish coating like the non ED version.

Now one would’ve thought that as the models progressed to newer versions the coatings would be improved, and some are. But if you notice I have an earlier version (non ED) to the left in the picture that shows that more reddish coding on a non-ED version I’ve had both ED versions side by side , as far as the brightness the greenish coatings appeared slightly brighter. But I agree with you when it comes to the edge performance, or lack thereof. I find that specific model regardless of which color coatings it has , has the smallest sweet spot of all the R Audubon models. Not only does it start to fall off at around 60% but it’s not gradual at all, it’s a very abrupt blurry outer 40% (give or take). I will say that I found both ED models to have slightly better CA correction, which I’d believe is why ED lens was used, the only problem is the standard model was pretty good with CA. I will say that the ED version being discussed here did have a more warmer, Nikon like image than the other non ED versions.

From my experience the markings on the prism plates indicating MC, FMC cannot be trusted. I have a an HR5 MC and FMC models that the difference is indiscernible. I believe Swift was a little bit loose with badging, and coatings and when and which models had what. I believe Bill Cook one of the experts on optics here on BF worked for and with Swift thorough the years and had mentioned in a few posts the less than stellar management of the company, especially in the latter 10 years of it existence. Elkcub , here in BF is another very knowledgeable person on the Swifts. I will say that most of these Audubons are phenomenal glass and compare optically to binos that cost double or even triple what these can be had for, if not abused.

Paul

jebe68 · Oct 23, 2023

Thank you for this accurate (and very recognizable) description of the different observations.
And congrats with this collection! Finally someone who can do a thorough side-by-side

)

I did recognize your description about the image color differences (indeed the greenish coating of my standard 804 HR5 MC seems to create a brighter image than the reddish coating on the ED). So that is a happy coincidence that you own a greenish coated ED then.
But most interesting is that you also confirmed the (in my case 'odd shaped') rather narrow sweet spot of the ED.

Luckily (and very surprisingly of course) my standard 804 HR/5 MC doesn't have those issues, and remains my favorite bino of all. But selling the ED because a 'normal' HR/5 MC out-performs it, remains a bit weird. Even if the management of Swift mixed things up a bit in the later years.
All in all very interresting stuff... especially for all the standard HR/5 MC- or FMC-owners: cherish it

Paultricounty · Oct 23, 2023

jebe68 said:
Thank you for this accurate (and very recognizable) description of the different observations.
And congrats with this collection! Finally someone who can do a thorough side-by-side )

I did recognize your description about the image color differences (indeed the greenish coating of my standard 804 HR5 MC seems to create a brighter image than the reddish coating on the ED). So that is a happy coincidence that you own a greenish coated ED then.
But most interesting is that you also confirmed the (in my case 'odd shaped') rather narrow sweet spot of the ED.

Luckily (and very surprisingly of course) my standard 804 HR/5 MC doesn't have those issues, and remains my favorite bino of all. But selling the ED because a 'normal' HR/5 MC out-performs it, remains a bit weird. Even if the management of Swift mixed things up a bit in the later years.
All in all very interresting stuff... especially for all the standard HR/5 MC- or FMC-owners: cherish it

It just goes to show what Bill Cook, and a few others here have been saying for years, a lot of this stuff (coatings , prisms , glass used) can easily be more for advertising than actual true observable improvements. like I’ve opined in many posts about some of the vintage 50-70 year old glass being optically better than many relatively expensive modern day binos. Of course there have been improvements in waterproofing, light transmission that helps in lower light conditions, as well as some edge characteristics have been approved, but older quality binos in overall image quality, in good lighting conditions still can compete very well, the Audubon is a nice example.

Paul

Still using your HR/5? (1 Viewer)

Active member

porromaniac

Active member

Silicon Valley, California

Active member

Silicon Valley, California

Active member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher

Well-known member

Member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Attachments

Member

sub-200 birding aspirant

Well-known member

Attachments

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread