Audubons. Are ED's worth the extra money? (1 Viewer)

The 820 eye cup is a twist up affair. Either all the way up or down, nothing in between. These seem to be quite prone to stay where they are put when extended. Some have remarked on the sloppy diopter, but on this one, it seems quite sung. How it will wear I can't say.

It has been a crappy weather spring. I hope to get in some birding this weekend. I have no doubt that the various shades of color from the bird world is the best way. I do want to go birding at least once with the 820 before it goes back. However the 820 image is behind the ZEN ED class roof a bit.

Kevin, you might check out Better View Desired. Ingraham's HHS review goes to philosophy a bit.

I've a wierd half notion to exchange the 820 for the 828.

Kevin Purcell said:

Ed, do you know what HHS's rationale was?

Like pretty much everyone else I dislike pull ups (especially if one uses rubber rainguards ... the tight fit of my after-market rainguard on my EO Raptor/Vixen Foresta porros mean the pull ups get pulled up whenever I use it. And as I wear glasses it's usually found out when a bunch of FOV has disappeared. I need some black tape

I found this too.

Even common birds (or especially common birds because they're always there for a comparison) if you get close. I find Black-capped chickadees are pretty good for this given the shading of one low saturation color into another on their bodies (grey, buff, whitish).

That said I wouldn't want to ue this to critique a bin in fall and compare it to a bin tested this was in spring. Much, much duller ... obviously worse

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I asked Nick the same question. His answer was, that's how HHS wanted it, period. No rationale. I have the same problem with the pull-ups on my 820, which didn't arrive with a rain guard so I don't know what the originals looked like.

Yes, common birds. Initially, I was so struck by the 804ED that I got a new field guide and started to revisit all the species from scratch, based on the feeling that if I hadn't seen them with the ED, I hadn't seen them at all. That all proved to be true. Even European Starlings and House Sparrows became intensely interesting.

There is no way to get around good lighting, though, and the subtle delights of the ED disappear in poor lighting, like stale coffee.

Ed

Do you mean the HHS review ...

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Swift-HHS-Audubon.php

Doesn't mention anything about the pull up versus twist up eyecups (and HHS apparently put them on the 828!).

I see Hot Digital are on vacation for the next couple of weeks .... but that might be an interesting exchange (lighter bin with narrower FOV).

And Elkcub just crossed with me. Thanks for those notes. Apparently he'd changed his mind by the 828!

"Even European Starlings and House Sparrows became intensely interesting."

Ask most birders to correctly to describe the coloration of a House Sparrow and they can't even though the male House Sparrow is not a dull LBJ: white wing bar, anyone? And a five colored head!

Gone on ... look closely at the next one you see

Kevin,

Yeah that is the review I was thinking about. I admit I goofed a bit. When you said HHS I jumped to the 828 HHS. It seems you meant the founders initials.

It is a more or less interesting trade. But I need the HHS like...well I don't know. With both the Promaster and ZEN and an 8x42 Monarch, lord knows I really do not need the 828. Curiosity can be a powerful thing. That is what I am with regard to the 838, curious.

Kevin Purcell said:

Do you mean the HHS review ...

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Swift-HHS-Audubon.php

Doesn't mention anything about the pull up versus twist up eyecups (and HHS apparently put them on the 828!).

I see Hot Digital are on vacation for the next couple of weeks .... but that might be an interesting exchange (lighter bin with narrower FOV).

And Elkcub just crossed with me. Thanks for those notes. Apparently he'd changed his mind by the 828!

"Even European Starlings and House Sparrows became intensely interesting."

Ask most birders to correctly to describe the coloration of a House Sparrow and they can't even though the male House Sparrow is not a dull LBJ: white wing bar, anyone? And a five colored head!

Gone on ... look closely at the next one you see

Click to expand...

It really took me a while to zone in on the subtle color effects of the 804ED, but once seen they couldn't be missed or forgotten. My perceptual system reorganized.

Most people, I suspect, wind up looking for something else in their evaluation, e.g., "resolution," sharpness, brightness, flat-field, stereo, ... whatever, and go right past this property. I also have no idea whether other ED implementations, such as in the Zeiss FL, Leica, Nikon EDG, and new Chinese products, produce this effect or something entirely different. From what I've heard, it's not even clear that the 820ED "got it."

Ed

elkcub said:

Most people, I suspect, wind up looking for something else in their evaluation, e.g., "resolution," sharpness, brightness, flat-field, stereo, ... whatever, and go right past this property. I also have no idea whether other ED implementations, such as in the Zeiss FL, Leica, Nikon EDG, and new Chinese products, produce this effect or something entirely different. From what I've heard, it's not even clear that the 820ED "got it."

Ed

Click to expand...

I think more immediately apparent characteristics are perhaps noted more significantly in reviews. It does take a while to really get to know a binocular to see if it grows on you or not.

I will say that Starlings, Crows, Pigeons, and House Sparrows look to have better detail and look a bit more interesting with the ZEN and Promaster than with the 820 ED. The CA in the 820 I thought was maybe a bit less well controlled in the 820 compared to the 804, which was just a bit behind the ZEN.

Richard...

If you are still hanging around--out there somewhere--what did you decide to do?

...Bob
Kentucky, USA

Yes their is a difference, at least to my eyes.
I have the ED model, and other Swift Audubon ones (the HR-S, the armored porro, and the HHS (the roof)).
The ED eliminates the color error/Chromatic aberration. Therefore, they are also "slightly" sharper than the other porro models. The Porros are all sharper than the roof version (but the roof has superb eye relief).

Example:
I look at common crows (U.S.) alot. The inside of a juvenile' mouth is pinkish red, as opposed to the adult's black.
Assuming the mouth is open some, I can see the reddish inside of the mouth on a juvenile crow, say, sitting against a bright sky, with the ED's, at say 100 feet. Normally cannot see the inside of mouth color with the other models.

Jay,
I just responded to one of your posts over on CN, and saw your name here and looked in. This really doesn't belong on the Swift forum, but I have a new Zeiss 8x42 FL, miles from the Swift porros I know, but it is their common thread, the ED glass, that has me really jumping up and down.

My black bird thing is turkey vultures, the ones with red heads. They roost in the canyon that I am lucky enough to walk through on the way to work. How bad a back light a bino will show a good view of these birds in, who are not ugly but, to anthromorph inappropriately, have a sad, wise look, is a severe test that lovers of diffraction patterns and grid targets really ought to consider. If they could only get themselves some handy backlit vultures. I will shout it from the treetops, Elimination of CA is THE STUFF. Enjoy your ED porros. I totally dig it. Buy some more, even. But I am obviously out of money.
Ron

Yeah "TV's" as hawk counters call them, are really neat. I have heard of some fans building "bird feeders" for them, but you need understanding nieghbors for that i bet

And yes, the 8x Zeiss FL look to be VERY good.

jaymoynihan said:

Yeah "TV's" as hawk counters call them, are really neat. I have heard of some fans building "bird feeders" for them, but you need understanding nieghbors for that i bet

Click to expand...

. . .

Go here and scroll down to listen to a TV call. :eek!:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Turkey_Vulture/sounds

...Bob
Kentucky

I just got a pair of Swifts ED820..I used a pair of the Non ED for years,and recently a couple of roofs ED(pentax ED8x32 and ZEn 8x43)...The Non ED 820 shows more color fringe than the ED version or other ED binoculars,But Not very objectionable..(as for instance the Nikon LXL 8x32 that is outrageous for a binocular that price)..The ED820 seems to be different in other ways too...It is true,that the color is more neutral,perhaps more vibrant and contrasty,But I think Is NOT as sharp..It brings lots of detail in a more subtle way...I looked at the coatings too,and they seem different,perhaps better..I am suspecting that besides the quality of the glass ,the optical design is also different..For What I remember about the 820 Non ED,I think they are an Outstanding Value...And they are NOT miles(optically) from any high end binocular either!!!!
I am not sure about the differences in design( I will call Nick Christa,He is a fan of Lazslo Kubala,that used to play in F.C Barcelona,My City,So I think he will tell me the secret!)

mayoayo said:

I just got a pair of Swifts ED820..I used a pair of the Non ED for years,and recently a couple of roofs ED(pentax ED8x32 and ZEn 8x43)...The Non ED 820 shows more color fringe than the ED version or other ED binoculars,But Not very objectionable..(as for instance the Nikon LXL 8x32 that is outrageous for a binocular that price)..The ED820 seems to be different in other ways too...It is true,that the color is more neutral,perhaps more vibrant and contrasty,But I think Is NOT as sharp..It brings lots of detail in a more subtle way...I looked at the coatings too,and they seem different,perhaps better..I am suspecting that besides the quality of the glass ,the optical design is also different..For What I remember about the 820 Non ED,I think they are an Outstanding Value...And they are NOT miles(optically) from any high end binocular either!!!!
I am not sure about the differences in design( I will call Nick Christa,He is a fan of Lazslo Kubala,that used to play in F.C Barcelona,My City,So I think he will tell me the secret!)

Click to expand...

Hi maoyao,

You are absolutely right, the same observations with my 820 ED too (I means that it seems not as a crisp as a Swaro but with more details in the view). And its neautrality to reproduce the colors is appreciated!

I as hungarian and football fan, I'am also interested to know the secret from Nick. Tell him about how many people mention the name of Hubala in Barcelona todays, if they just knewn you are hungarian.

Regards

Vámi

I didn't mean optically with that "miles" comment, I know what a good Porro will do. The only way the Zeiss beats my old Fujinon 7x50 optically is, big surprise, no CA. By all accounts the Audubons are that good.
Ron

BobinKy said:

. . .

Go here and scroll down to listen to a TV call. :eek!:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Turkey_Vulture/sounds

...Bob
Kentucky

Click to expand...

That's what a Turkey Vulture sounds like?

Another comment on the ED version.

When i got mine several years ago, the focus was very stiff, and it was not really easy to get exact focus. Having several pair of binoculars, i never got around to sending them away to have this corrected

A few weeks ago I finally did, and recently got them back. The focus improved, smooth and accurate.

With this improvement, i have now been able not only to observe their color correction, but also there resolution/sharpness.

It is hard to describe the difference between these (excepting the superior color correction), and my alpha bins (Zeiss 7x42 BGATP, Zeiss 8x30 BGATP, Leica 10x42 BA) and a pair of Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL's I tried recently and fallen seriously into lust with.

Their is a certain ease of view, ease of focus, and comfort to the eye muscles with these alphas, that I have yet to see for less money in any bino's, other than the Nikon 8x32 SE.

Given all that, this is my advice, if you:

If you cannot afford an alpha bino;
or
If you prefer not to pay the cost of an alpha bino;
or
You cannot find a pair of Nikno 8x32 SE's to buy, or suffer from the "blackout" problem with them;

If you do not have to wear eyeglasses with binoculars, buy the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED.

If you have to wear eyeglasses, try them first, then buy them.

jaymoynihan said:

If you have to wear eyeglasses, try them first, then buy them.

Click to expand...

What would be the problem if you wear eyeglasses?

Malloot said:

What would be the problem if you wear eyeglasses?

Click to expand...

To see if their 16mm eye relief is compatible with your eyeglasses. You want to be able to see the entire 430' Field of view.

Bob

Malloot said:

What would be the problem if you wear eyeglasses?

Click to expand...

I wrote that because some people have written in the past about eye relief issues with the porro models, if you are an obligate eye glass wearer.

I am, and have found the eye relief to be fine. But I do not think that has been universally true.

ceasar said:

To see if their 16mm eye relief is compatible with your eyeglasses. You want to be able to see the entire 430' Field of view.

Bob

Click to expand...

Lies, dripping off your ads like dirt
Lies, lies in every spec you make
Lies, whispered sweetly in my ear
Lies, how do I get out of here?

When the 820s first came out, Swift (which makes some very good bins, the 804 Audubons, for instance) listed the ER for the 820 Audubons as 18mm.

I guess there was a backlash (me, calling the company and writing about the false advertising on bin forums might have been part of that So a few years later, they changed that spec to 16mm.

The way that most companies list ER is the focal point above the EP where the rays converge (as much as achromatic optics rays will converge) and not the actual usable ER for eyeglass wearers.

You need some recession in the EP (~2-3mm) or else your glasses might hit the EP lenses, depending on the curve of your glasses).

So whatever the list is, you usually have to take away ~3-2 mm (Nikon is pretty good at listing usable ER, but most companies aren't).

So that leaves you with 13-14 mm usable ER in the case of the 820s.

But wait! The oversized, hard, twist-up eyecups on the 820 also puts you back 1 or 2mm, so figure on 12-13mm usable ER. I think its 12mm. Someone measured this once, but I can't remember the source.

Jay excepted (and perhaps some other users with flat facial features and thin polycarbonate glasses) can make due with that much ER, but most eyeglass wearers can't.

IMO, the 820 Audubons, which were advertised as being "suitable for eyeglass wearers" should have read "not suitable for most eyeglass wearers".

They are also not good for humanoids with deep-set eyes and/or high-bridged noses. If you have the facial features of a Klingon, you will not be able to see the entire FOV with your glasses off.

Partly because of the supersized eyecups and partly because of the protruding focuser, which can give you a pain in the ajna (brow) chakra.

The bridge also flexes, and the paint on the metal on the 820 I had started to peel off within a few days.

That all said, the optics were very good, but the package, not so good, particularly for a company's "flagship" bin.

I prefer the 804 model. Better ER, more comfortable eyecups, no protruding focuser, and a very sturdy bridge.

And I'm not just saying this to plug the 804 Audubon I plan on selling on BF Classifieds.