• 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.

Oh no! Say it ain't so Joe! (1 Viewer)

No argument, Rick. OEMs take advantage of all kinds of consumer expectations to sell products. In this instance, they can also play it a bit loose. Strictly speaking, for example, the aperture of the objective itself might be equal to the lens diameter, but when coupled with the inverter and eyepiece the total system's aperture is smaller. Sure, the measured EP would be slightly less than one would expect by simply dividing the diameter by power. But, I don't take that as a deception, or necessarily a fault, since other properties are probably optimized, such as resolution, f-ratio, glare, and weight.

Just some thoughts.

Happy holidays,

Ed
 
Here is a pic of what I think is the offending baffle. Someone who has use the same method tested the model #804 and posted on CN that theirs was full aperture.

Rick,

I just looked down the barrels of my 804 MC, and the first baffle is half way down the tube in front of the prism, and the baffle is not as wide as the either of the ones in the 820. The tube before the baffle is "rifled".

Stray light control is very good, better, in fact, than the FMC 804.

There is no obstruction of the optical path like the 820.

When I saw this on the 820, I called Swift, and was told by their techie that this was "perfectly normal" and that it was a slight intrusion of the edge of the prisms but that it did not "affect the optical performance".
 
Brock the inside of my 820 is completely smooth and painted in a matte gunmetal gray/black. There is only one baffle, the second you may see actually holds the prism assembly.

At about the 7 o'clock position (above first light reflection) there is a metal rail of unknown purpose connecting flush with the front baffle to the prism.

At ~10-11 o'clock postion there is more metal of unknown purpose seen that connects to the prism that could be the source of the slight clipping of the exit pupil seen in my first pic.

Again, I want to stress that overall I am still VERY PLEASED with these binoculars, especially given what I paid for them. I even don't mind the plasticy oculars and focus bridge as they have been perfectly functional though they make a crackling noise during focus. I also wish the diopter would stay fixed when deploying the twistup eyecups too, but I suppose some tape can fix that.

merry christmas,
Rick
 
Brock the inside of my 820 is completely smooth and painted in a matte gunmetal gray/black. There is only one baffle, the second you may see actually holds the prism assembly.

At about the 7 o'clock position (above first light reflection) there is a metal rail of unknown purpose connecting flush with the front baffle to the prism.

At ~10-11 o'clock postion there is more metal of unknown purpose seen that connects to the prism that could be the source of the slight clipping of the exit pupil seen in my first pic.

Again, I want to stress that overall I am still VERY PLEASED with these binoculars, especially given what I paid for them. I even don't mind the plasticy oculars and focus bridge as they have been perfectly functional though they make a crackling noise during focus. I also wish the diopter would stay fixed when deploying the twistup eyecups too, but I suppose some tape can fix that.

merry christmas,
Rick

Rick,

I'm surprised they dropped the rifling. Works well for the MC. I can't remember if the FMC had it too, probably did. I don't think they redesigned the body.

The baffle that holds the prism, that's all there is in the 804.

The 804 FMC could have used a second baffle because it suffers from flare even though you would think that the FMCs would be better at reducing reflections.

When I compared the two (MC and FMC 804s), looking down the objective ends, I could see the prisms reflected on the walls of the barrels in the FMC.

I could see just a tiny bit of this in the MC version, but much more in the FMC. They changed something with the prisms or the prism mounts in the FMC 804, and it wasn't a change for the better.

Despite the greater flare, the FMC 804 is sharper, brighter, and has more vivid colors than the MC version, but the trade off is in edge performance and field distortion (the FMC has more pincushion). This is based on two samples of each version.

After seeing Holger's pix of the ZR baffles, and reading your posts, I wonder if those new baffles reduced the effective aperture on the ZRs?

Merry Christmas and enjoy your Christmas Cake and KFC!

http://www.planettokyo.com/news/index.cfm/fuseaction/story/ID/76/
 
I've looked pretty carefully at mine and haven't seen any construction differences in Type 4 models from the 804R (1985), which has MC optics, through the 804 HR/5 (1996), which has fully multi-coated optics. The very early Swift-Pyser HR/5 equivalent of the 804R appeared in the early 80s, and used the same MC optics. However, I seriously doubt that it differed in prism construction. Frankly, I can't see any difference in optical distortion between the specimens I own, although perceived edge performance is influenced by coating effects.

I'm just saying this to maintain historical accuracy, where possible. Of course, sample variations, or differences in condition can also influence one's conclusions. My samples, including an 820 (2000), were all serviced by Nicolas Crista, and may uniformly perform better than they did originally.

Happy Holidays,
Ed
 
Last edited:
My samples, including an 820 (2000), were all serviced by Nicolas Crista, and may uniformly perform better than they did originally.

Happy Holidays,
Ed

Hi Ed,

I have seen Nicolas Crista mentioned in this forum in several threads. Who is he and what did he do and does he still do it?

Being here in Tokyo, I am close to the Japanese optics "mothership" so I doubt I will ever need service help but you never know!

thanks!
Rick
 
I've looked pretty carefully at mine and haven't seen any construction differences in Type 4 models from the 804R (1985), which has MC optics, through the 804 HR/5 (1996), which has fully multi-coated optics. The very early Swift-Pyser HR/5 equivalent of the 804R appeared in the early 80s, and used the same MC optics. However, I seriously doubt that it differed in prism construction. Frankly, I can't see any difference in optical distortion between the specimens I own, although perceived edge performance is influenced by coating effects.

I'm just saying this to maintain historical accuracy, where possible. Of course, sample variations, or differences in condition can also influence one's conclusions. My samples, including an 820 (2000), were all serviced by Nicolas Crista, and may uniformly perform better than they did originally.

Happy Holidays,
Ed

Ed,

The two FMC 804s I sold were not the same. The first didn't have the stray light issue nor did I see the prism reflections its barrels like the second sample.

OTOH, the second sample measured higher resolution on the chart (the image scale was also larger), and it had more pincushion than the first sample.

The first sample had a bit more field curvature or astigmatism (I can't remember which) in the left EP than the right. The second sample was the same in both.

Overall, the first FMC sample had more "ease of view" like my 804 MC than did the second sample, probably due to the greater pincushion in the latter.

So each 804 FMC sample had its strong points and weak points. Why the variations, I don't know.

From comments I've read about the 804 ED, the ED sample I had wasn't as good as the two I read about on this forum. The sweet spot was smaller than the FMCs (the MC version was the best in that regard), and it was shaped like a slit (noticeably sharper on the vertical axis than the horizontal).

The 820 Audubon I bought had an obstructed path like Rick mentioned, but the degree of obstruction was different in each barrel.

The view through both MC 804s I owned looked identical. So I might have gotten lucky there. I still have one of the MC 804s. Not as sharp or bright as the FMC version, but with a noticeably wider sweet spot and very comfortable "ease of view".

I wish I had taken photos through each sample's EPs and down the barrels from the objective end to show the differences I mentioned, but at the time I didn't realize that it would be of historical importance. :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Ed,

I have seen Nicolas Crista mentioned in this forum in several threads. Who is he and what did he do and does he still do it?

Being here in Tokyo, I am close to the Japanese optics "mothership" so I doubt I will ever need service help but you never know!

thanks!
Rick

Hi Rick,

Nicolas Crista is a German trained engineer who became the chief optical technician for Swift Instruments in 1988, after he closed his own parts manufacturing business in the US. He worked closely with Humphrey H. Swift ("Hop"), and was called upon to correct serious design flaws in Hiyoshi's original 820 eyecups. Subsequently, he was awarded the US patent. He now has his own business: http://www.nrcoptics.com/, and has the machinery and skills to craft just about any part that's missing or broken in old instruments. He's also a very fine gentleman from the old school.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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