What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swift
New To Me HR/5
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="elkcub" data-source="post: 1863786" data-attributes="member: 14473"><p>Hey Henry,</p><p></p><p>You might reread a few of the earlier posts, since the Audubon collector's issue is not design differences between the eyepieces, but differences between MC and FMC coatings. I may not have made it clear, but by admission they all have the same type of 5-element Erfle design, including the 804ED, Kestrel, and Model 820. </p><p></p><p>To frame the issue, I started by presenting two 804 specimens that are each labeled "Multi-Coated Optics," but obviously are quite different. Chad and John appear to have the same HR/5 model that I do, so the question on the table now is whether the HR/5 marked "Fully Multi-Coated" is the same or different. If there is no red reflection in the FMC HR/5 it is different. If there is a red reflection, we are left with the nasty "null-hypothesis" that there is no difference. Strictly speaking, of course, it's nasty because it can't be proven. </p><p></p><p>I thought one way to finesse the problem might simply be to compare all the prism coatings from the objective side. By all accounts, FMC binoculars should display green multi-coatings, whereas the MC specimens might or might not. Well, sad news. Save for the 804R, which may be uncoated, all of the other specimens display single-layer prism coatings independent of their MC or FMC markings. This includes the 804ED, 10x50 Kestrel, and Model #820, — all marked FMC. If someone can please produce a Swift FMC Porro that has more than a single-layer MgF prism coating please join in the conversation. I would like to be wrong. </p><p></p><p>So, how come Nikon sticks with the rules and Swift does not? As an example, here are the reflections from my new 8x32SE (s/n 550xxx). See, the nice green (whoops, gold and blue) reflections from the front and back of the doublet, and strong green (oh, no, purple) reflection from the prism face?</p><p></p><p>Maybe it's my eyes. :-C</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="elkcub, post: 1863786, member: 14473"] Hey Henry, You might reread a few of the earlier posts, since the Audubon collector's issue is not design differences between the eyepieces, but differences between MC and FMC coatings. I may not have made it clear, but by admission they all have the same type of 5-element Erfle design, including the 804ED, Kestrel, and Model 820. To frame the issue, I started by presenting two 804 specimens that are each labeled "Multi-Coated Optics," but obviously are quite different. Chad and John appear to have the same HR/5 model that I do, so the question on the table now is whether the HR/5 marked "Fully Multi-Coated" is the same or different. If there is no red reflection in the FMC HR/5 it is different. If there is a red reflection, we are left with the nasty "null-hypothesis" that there is no difference. Strictly speaking, of course, it's nasty because it can't be proven. I thought one way to finesse the problem might simply be to compare all the prism coatings from the objective side. By all accounts, FMC binoculars should display green multi-coatings, whereas the MC specimens might or might not. Well, sad news. Save for the 804R, which may be uncoated, all of the other specimens display single-layer prism coatings independent of their MC or FMC markings. This includes the 804ED, 10x50 Kestrel, and Model #820, — all marked FMC. If someone can please produce a Swift FMC Porro that has more than a single-layer MgF prism coating please join in the conversation. I would like to be wrong. So, how come Nikon sticks with the rules and Swift does not? As an example, here are the reflections from my new 8x32SE (s/n 550xxx). See, the nice green (whoops, gold and blue) reflections from the front and back of the doublet, and strong green (oh, no, purple) reflection from the prism face? Maybe it's my eyes. :-C [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swift
New To Me HR/5
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top