Audubon HR5 vs Ultravid (1 Viewer)

[avecaves]

I bought my pair of 8.5x44 new in the nineties. Used them as my main bino until I bought a Leica Ultravid 8x42 non hd. The Audubon has mostly been on a shelf for above ten years while I have been enjoying the Ultravid mostly for its ergonomics and that it handle the Swedish winter so well. The Audubon does handle winter quite bad with stiff focus coming with the cold and sometimes interior fogs up.

When I now compare the two optically the Audubon is the winner when it comes to resolution. I simply can pick up more details and also feather coloring. I get a more nuanced picture. And the longer I study an object the more details I will see, sort of grows out. The CA of the FMC optics is not as good, but not a problem. Also the sweet spot is larger. The color of the picture is quite neutral.

I am certainly impressed by this old binocular!

 

[avecaves]

Here is a pic of the binocular, its bag and orig strap. On the left prism housing there is a label "Sveriges Ornitologiska Förening", now known as Birdlife Sverige. This was the official binocular of the society. The best compromise if you would like only one. Back then people often used 7x or 10x here and I guess this sits in between.

 

[avecaves]

Continuing on the comparison between the two...

If you wear glasses the Ultravid is much better (perfect) than the Audubon where the field of view become much narrower. In fact even without glasses I like folding the eyecups down => more immersive view.

The focuser and diopter is very good on the Ultravid vs stiff in cold weather and wandering for the porro. I constantly have to reset the diopter on the Audubon. This could perhaps be solved but when wearing thick gloves in the cold a hard to move focuser is a valid practical problem.

They both seem to be made from high quality material since they age so well.

The image of the Ultravid is really nice and easy to use. Its not the sharpest on the market but really good in the center. The Audubon does however deliver more detail and a larger usable part of the image.

The Ultravid handle glare very well, the best I have seen. The Audubon is ok. After owning a Ultravid its very expensive to find a better all purpose binocular (8x42) also taking size and weight into account. My impression is that you have to look at newer Ultravids, Nikon EDG, Swaro SLC or Zeiss FL to get a better image in a similar package.

 

[lmans66]

I have an Audubon too by Swift...I loved them. In my second pair I tried to find the same ones and believe I did but for some reason I am thinking they were the Bushnell series then. Did Swift and Bushnell combine? The bins were exactly the same to me when I compared them. I believe both were around $99 US dollars in the 90's. In my younger days in the 90's, this was my binocular of choice. I still have it around someplace. When I look thru it once in a while and compare to some of my new glass, the sharpness of this porro is amazing

Yes...a huge...huge issue is the focus and quickness of. One of the main reasons why my eyes started looking elsewhere. Nice little review you did...good impressions. jim

 

[richard866945]

I'm not surprised that the focus gets stiff when cold. After so many years, the grease becomes a bit waxy. A clean and regrease will restore the original smoothness.

 

[elkcub]

Continuing on the comparison between the two...

If you wear glasses the Ultravid is much better (perfect) than the Audubon where the field of view become much narrower. In fact even without glasses I like folding the eyecups down => more immersive view.

The focuser and diopter is very good on the Ultravid vs stiff in cold weather and wandering for the porro. I constantly have to reset the diopter on the Audubon. This could perhaps be solved but when wearing thick gloves in the cold a hard to move focuser is a valid practical problem.

They both seem to be made from high quality material since they age so well.

The image of the Ultravid is really nice and easy to use. Its not the sharpest on the market but really good in the center. The Audubon does however deliver more detail and a larger usable part of the image.

The Ultravid handle glare very well, the best I have seen. The Audubon is ok. After owning a Ultravid its very expensive to find a better all purpose binocular (8x42) also taking size and weight into account. My impression is that you have to look at newer Ultravids, Nikon EDG, Swaro SLC or Zeiss FL to get a better image in a similar package.

Hi,

I just noticed your thread. You might be interested in THIS ONE that is dedicated to all the variants of Swift's Model 804. See Post #15 for the article Renze de Vries and I wrote.

Ed

 

[avecaves]

Thanks for your replies Richard, Jim and Ed.

Clearly this binocular has some credibility capital built up through the years. I think its really good as a all purpose binocular. Today its resolving power helped me give wonderfully detailed views on a few Northern Wheatears, a Whinchat and a Woodlark. They were foraging about 80 m away from me and again the binocular delivered such detail that I could id the Woodlark.

 

[avecaves]

I have now also done a short test with the HR5 against the Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD. The SLC was made 2010 and is the previous generation.

Ergonomically the focuser, diopter adjustment, eyecups is clearly better on the SLC. On the HR5 the diopter creeps as I walk around. I would say that the SLC and the Ultravid is very similar in this regard. You set the diopter and then forget about it. Its a bit harder to reach the focuser on the HR5 since the bino is wide, you have to change the grip a bit. The entire field can be used on the SLC with glasses on.

Optically for the center performance I think they are very very close. I looked at the bark of an apple tree 15 m away and a roof 200 m away. The HR5 lets you see very fine details of the target. The SLC is just a little better on contrast/resolution. The tree had a strand from a spider web that was somewhat easy to see on the SLC but almost invisible on the HR5. But you really have to switch between them to see a difference. Other things where the SLC is better is CA - haven't seen any, sweet spot - almost to the edge, colors - I think the SLC is very neutral HR5 a bit yellower, brightness - SLC is just a bit brighter.

 

[Mark9473]

I had an HR5 for quite a number of years, and if they were superb on one thing it was center resolution. It's great news that there are modern binoculars that even surpass it.