Newly designed Audubons? (3 Viewers)

[ronh]

Frank is right of course, but the specks that Chosun photographed, on the inside of the objective or front of the prisms, would not be seen in use, and would block an infinitesimal fraction of the light.

Chosun, do you actually see specks "in focus" when you look at a bright field? Or are you just annoyed knowing they are in there? The former, I'm with you, show it the door. The latter would not be crazy or anything like that, as we have high standards here don't we, but it might be tolerated in an otherwise very good binocular that you got for $99.
Ron

 

[NDhunter]

Chosen:

You seem to be quite a drama queen. I did not know that on here they
pay by the word. If they did, you would do well. |=o|

You posted you were wowed by the view when you first got your new optic, and you paid only $99.00.

You will probably not get another thrill like that again for the $. :t:

Don't worry, be happy.

Jerry

 

[Chosun Juan]

Jerry,

Oh dear! You are quite the charmer?! Sorry to keep you "up" |=o| ,I bet you'd have all the "birds" eating out of your hand .......

FWIW everybody, in a thread that has over 100 posts, and over 11,000 views, a sum total of exactly 3 people here have laid eyes / hands on these bins! As a 33% shareholder in that, I have posted the real world details (as viewed by me) that everyone has been speculating about .....

It's quite important for those scattered all over the globe to get some "fair dinkum" facts regarding performance, and potential "sight unseen" purchases (particularly when you don't have half a dozen "joe-marts" on every block - heck, some folk don't even have blocks - least not one that you could walk inside of a week anysways ..... =)

We're drier than an Alice Springs creek bed in an El Nino out here (at least the two Davids appreciate it!) :t: so at the risk of "boring" anyone further :gn: allow me to clarify a few mis-translations! .......

Yes, the central view is Wow!

For this I paid "5" Benjamin Franklins! (what we call "half a G" over here) - see post #80. The $99 bit, was a bit of a "dig" at the naff quality (you just know you're going to go hungry as a comic when you have to explain your gags!) $500 is a fair whack of dough (though not this much) ...... I think it's quite reasonable to expect no major performance glitches (mis-collimation, unequal and /or poor resolution, lack of coating integrity, etc, etc, etc), AND a good quality of manufacture (tolerance levels, armouring intact /not peeling, parts finished and coated well, and internal cleanliness /integrity). I also think you could expect a fair degree of design sophistication for that price.

Given that it's a "Japan" produced product - the quite reasonable expectation is:- that the quality would be a step up from the "Chin-bins". Not so. People forking over 500 smackeroonies deserve to know that. Pics to prove

Mark has unwittingly stumbled upon a valid question - how many specks are a deal breaker?
One? Two? Half a Dozen? A Dozen? 20? More?
Is it worse if they're dust mite poo? sparkly metal filings? lint? nose hair? live "wrigglies"?
Where do you draw the line?

I think a dozen a side is unacceptable. Moreover, I'm concerned that it may be just the thin end of the wedge (given some of the internal finishing).

Ron, (as always, sensible) asks if it really matters? unless they're visible in the view. To answer that question - it's not readily apparent (although the caveat is that I've just been enjoying the birds and not really scrutinising as such). There was once when I saw multiple little sparkly rainbow-coloured lights :hippy: after changing view from bright sky to something else, but I can't say for certain if that was the specks, or just some temporary out of body dimensional shift! :eek!:

I have agonised long and hard over the fate of this bin (hence the song - apologies to the Clash!)

This bin is a sensational specification (dodgy 50% ambitious close-focus specs notwithstanding). It's performance (beyond 15ft!) is fantastic. It's a brilliant birding instrument. In practice, in the close-in (but necessarily beyond 15ft ), dense riparian shrubbery /canopy and gorge type viewing that I've been doing lately, it's pretty much peerless.

Had it been none, or a mere "two" at most, non-descript, not practicably visible specks, and had the close-focus been 10ft as spec'd, had the internal finish been up to scratch (with no scatches!), and the glare control all that it could be, I'd have my keeper. Something I could do the mods I mentioned on, and keep for a lifetime. Heck I could've even bought additional tethered covers (Mark, measurements in my post #88 - any worthwhile suggestions?). General viewing bin position filled!

However, those specks, the dodgy bright work inside, and the bogus specifications, leave me feeling disappointed; downright angry even - my expected perfection has been violated. Unforgiveable!

But what's worse has been Swift themselves ....... below is their response to my complaints ......




:storm: Chosun :gh:

 

[Kammerdiner]

...

Mark has unwittingly stumbled upon a valid question - how many specks are a deal breaker?
One? Two? Half a Dozen? A Dozen? 20? More?
Is it worse if they're dust mite poo? sparkly metal filings? lint? nose hair? live "wrigglies"?
Where do you draw the line?

...

:storm: Chosun :gh:

Hey, I thought my post was quite wittingly. I even looked up the lyrics to get it right. I grew up on the Clash. Still have London Calling somewhere in a box from my youth.

As for the question, I don't think there's a good excuse for much dust in a $500 Japanese binocular. A few years ago I paid $500 for an 8x32 SE and it was utterly immaculate. They've raised the price since then, however. It's just a question of what you're willing to accept, and whether it actually impinges on the view.

Mark

 

[brocknroller]

All I can say is thank GNURKER for someone on these forums who has wit, intelligence, and cultural competency, and the ability to put them altogether in his posts about binoculars. I find it harder to read terse, cryptic sentence fragments from less articulate members than I do Chosen Juan's verbose posts.

As to the QC issues with the 820s, having owned the 820 and several 804s, I found that the earlier models had better quality control manufacturing than the latter day model, which was shoddily constructed and less robust. The view (or as much as I could see with the hard plastic eyecups and protruding centerpost preventing me from getting close enough to the EPs) was very good. If the mechanics and construction matched the quality of the optics, $500 would be steal for such bin, given that the optics compete with the EL WB.

I had hoped the changeover to a new body style represented an effort to improve the quality and construction of the Audubon porro, but from what Chosen Juan has written and shown in his pix, Swift needs to go back to the drawing board, fix the glitches, and send a QC manager to wherever these are manufactured to make sure that they are up to Japanese standards and that buyers still get the "best bang for their buck" with quality porros.

Swift also needs to update the Audubon roof. If allbinos' light transmission numbers are correct, 75% light transmission for Swift's top roof is quite poor since many entry level roofs can now do better.

Alison's grandfather would probably roll over in his grave if he read this, but if Swift isn't serious about making binoculars anymore, they should get out of the business and concentrate on their other product lines -- microscopes, microscope cameras and accessories, spotting scopes and riflescopes.

<B>

 

[jaymoynihan]

Thank you for the review, Chosun

 

[ronh]

Brock,
If I am not mistaken, daisys are vibrating with Allison's subterranean posthumous chuckles. Swift as it was known IS out of the biz, having sold their name to an otherwise nameless bunch of suits who doubtless show each other Power Point slides of curves sloping ever downward, and wonder what new business model might be brought in to stop it. 'Bout time to unload this optics thing, they must be starting to think. Vision not.
Ron

 

[etudiant]

Brock,
If I am not mistaken, daisys are vibrating with Allison's subterranean posthumous chuckles. Swift as it was known IS out of the biz, having sold their name to an otherwise nameless bunch of suits who doubtless show each other Power Point slides of curves sloping ever downward, and wonder what new business model might be brought in to stop it. 'Bout time to unload this optics thing, they must be starting to think. Vision not.
Ron

That is really too bad.
The Swift idea, to provide binoculars with outstanding cost/performance by competing the manufacture of competent designs among qualified low cost suppliers, remains entirely valid and deserves to be continued.
There are new entrants such as Zen-Ray that appear to have a similar strategy, but there is still considerable value in the Swift brand, at least imho and it is disheartening to see it brought low .

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,
If I am not mistaken, daisys are vibrating with Allison's subterranean posthumous chuckles. Swift as it was known IS out of the biz, having sold their name to an otherwise nameless bunch of suits who doubtless show each other Power Point slides of curves sloping ever downward, and wonder what new business model might be brought in to stop it. 'Bout time to unload this optics thing, they must be starting to think. Vision not.
Ron

She's not coming up on "Dead or Alive" and is still listed as president and CEO of Swift Optical on Wikedpedia. How do you know she's dead? Are you channeling her from the other side?

As to the suits, I hope they are not the same equity firm that's blaming striking workers for the demise of Hostess. Knowing how these investment firms operate, it wouldn't surprise me if it was their strategy all along -- bust down the worker's wages, pensions, and benefits to the point of making them strike, then use the strike as an excuse to shut down the company and sell off its assets and its proprietary products such Twinkies, so they can line their deep pockets. It's like the 80s all over again.

Speaking of the 80s, my Audubon 804s are one of my most treasured bins for both birding and stargazing, I plan to take them with me tonight to use before the Leonid meteor shower begins.

Which reminds me, I've got to stop by the supermarket on my way out to pick up some Devil Dogs before they are all sold out!

<B>

 

[ronh]

Brock,
Well, it looks like I heard wrong, and apologize to Ms. Swift and all the Swift fans out there. Here's something I surfed on the company that is quite encouraging:

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=37747365&targetid=profile

No it doesn't say anything about specks however.
Ron

 

[Chosun Juan]

Final Report - Swift 820 Audubon 8.5x44 ED porro

Well folks, the "Clash" between my expectations /non-negotiable performance standards, and ...... the product delivered to me:
Has been resolved in FINALITY!

I offer all of this, and previous information as a public service - well able to empathise with the remote, and the forgotten.
The Swift has been found guilty as charged and sentenced to banishment! (in an exceedingly strange :h?: strategy, advisors for the defence decided in their wisdom [or not] to remain |:x| ?!)

The Swift sadly (sadly :-C because with a potentially great bin, it was such a missed opportunity, and downright c*ckup) has been returned for a full refund.
To the manufacturer / business owners - brickbats, lemons, and rotten tomatoes! |=@| :C :storm:
To the retailer I dealt with - a huge thank you. Exemplary. Outstanding! :t:

I did have further photographic evidence prepared, showing the near dozen or so specks on the prisms of the other side from that shown previously, as well as something that at best was a great big piece of lint, and was at worst, someone's nostril hair or something like that! :eek!: Ewww .......

As if the final ignominy for Swift is sufficient, in a mysterious divine act of saving grace - those pics were accidently deleted by a less than favoured satellite family member - who really wants to look at nostril hairs inside bins anyway! ||

My final judgement is thus:
1). If you live scattered to the four corners of the globe, with nary a bin dispenser within cooee, let alone one of those super optical "Joe-Marts" - then steer well clear of ordering this bin sight unseen / untouched (unless of course you have copious amounts of idle cash for postage back and forth, and back and forth again, and again; a penchant for talking to yourself, and get a real thrill out of delays, endless frustrations, time-thieving and BS) ......... You should also note that in my experience the International Warranty registration contact was defunct, and although the warranty was "supposedly" registered after contacting the US, that nothing more was heard from them, nada, nyet, zip, silencia ...... and this was despite repeated and constant attempts to contact them.

2). Despite this damning judgement, I miss it, and my advice to those with access to large stocks to physically inspect, is to have a hands-on look ...... bring your unacceptable internal speck finding, and brightwork detecting torch, determine the close focus of the unit, and scrutinise the 'glare' appearance / performance, (also check the focusing bridge flexion / dioptre set-up for you - to make sure there are no dramas), as well as eyecup movement precision, and rubber armouring for intactness [no bubbling] ........ if by chance you find one to your liking, then offer to take it off the poor retailer's hands after driving a very hard bargain - better for them to make even 1 $ than have them sit permanently on the shelves gathering dust ...... oh, and don't forget to make sure that they chuck in a gratis pair of tethered objective and eyepiece covers!

Lastly, to poor Allison, and/or the suits overseeing the demise of this once proud brand - if you want to turn it around, do things properly, and actually make a $ ........ contact me ...... I am very expensive, but exceedingly good.


Chosun :gh:

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,
Well, it looks like I heard wrong, and apologize to Ms. Swift and all the Swift fans out there. Here's something I surfed on the company that is quite encouraging:

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=37747365&targetid=profile

No it doesn't say anything about specks however.
Ron

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated, but my grandfather would probably roll over in his grave if he saw the shoddy workmanship on the 820 Audubon."
-- Ms. Alison C. Swift

 

[angelo225544]

Too bad old porros can't be updated with the latest coatings, if they could, I'd probably never buy another roof!

I coudn't agree more! I finally found a nice clean 804 HR/5 FMC, and I can say without reservation, my search for a reasonably priced porro that fully equals the finest roofs is over. I should add this qualifier - I don't wear glasses, and I am able to service them periodically myself. It seems periodic collimation adjustments and removing haze from prisms is part of the price of enjoying porros, since they aren't sealed. Now that the Chinese are starting to produce excellent roof binos for reasonable prices, I think I can hear the final nail being driven into the porro's coffin.

 

[angelo225544]

A few pics of the Swift 820 Audubon 8.5x44 ED porro prism diopter mechanism, and close-ups of the new focuser bridge.

View attachment 411822 View attachment 411823 View attachment 411824 View attachment 411825 View attachment 411826


Chosun :gh:

While it may be metal, it is considerably thinner than the bridge on the 804. Of equal importance would be the hardness of the alloy being used, and the precision of the fit between the bridge halves and the axle to which they are attached. Further, the choice of material for the central axle is very important, as is the precision of the fit between the occulars and their guide sleeves, and whether they have a single bearing surface, or two. Ignoring any one of these areas will result in some degree of instability, which will quickly take the enjoyment out of even the finest glass. I think the overwhelming popular preference for roof prism binos has already started a seismic shift in the economies of scale. We are beginning to see roof prism binoculars from China as lower cost alternatives to porro prism binoculars from Japan! Who ever would have guessed?

 

[Holger Merlitz]

While it may be metal, it is considerably thinner than the bridge on the 804. Of equal importance would be the hardness of the alloy being used, and the precision of the fit between the bridge halves and the axle to which they are attached. Further, the choice of material for the central axle is very important, as is the precision of the fit between the occulars and their guide sleeves, and whether they have a single bearing surface, or two. Ignoring any one of these areas will result in some degree of instability, which will quickly take the enjoyment out of even the finest glass. I think the overwhelming popular preference for roof prism binos has already started a seismic shift in the economies of scale. We are beginning to see roof prism binoculars from China as lower cost alternatives to porro prism binoculars from Japan! Who ever would have guessed?

I have just got a sample of this new version of the 820 ED. It is a deja vu experience: It feels precisely like the B&L Discoverer which I owned a couple of years ago (and which I used quite a lot that times). I find a couple of discrepancies between specs on the Swift webpage and my own measurements:

Specs on http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/binoculars.html#820

weight: 682g
field of view: 143m/1000m
power: 8.5

My own measurements delivered:

weight: 800g
field of view: 137m/1000m
power: 8

Yes, I see no difference whatsoever between my 8x power binoculars and the magnification of the Swift. I haven't measured its apparent field of view, it is slightly above 60 degs, less than 65 for sure.

Funny is: The objective lens diameter is in fact 44mm, the exit pupil about 5.2mm, which doesn't fit together with 8x power. There may be a baffle stopping down the entrance pupil.

This binocular is not bad, with a bright and crisp image no doubt, but its parameters differ quite a bit from specifications.

Wild guess: They took the old B&L discoverer, added ED objectives and the Swift logo, and ready was the new 820 ED.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[angelo225544]

Wild guess: They took the old B&L discoverer, added ED objectives and the Swift logo, and ready was the new 820 ED.

Cheers,
Holger

Hello, Holger. I would like to thank you for your superb website. I'm certain I've read every word (in English, at least), and learned alot from your comparisons. I wonder if you (or anyone else) can help me with a subject I have been frustrated in researching... It would seem to me that applying black paint the non-polished side surfaces of porro prisms, in addition to adding light shields like those in the Audubon 804 HR/5 would significantly diminish the prism bleeding I see in most porro prism binoculars. I have yet to own a porro binocular that has been so treated (although I have read that it has been done). Why wouldn't manufacturers take such a seemingly inexpensive measure more often? Are you aware of any binoculars you have compared that might help quantify any potential improvement? I am thinking of modifying my Audubon 804 HR/5 FMC's in this manner, but thought I might ask for opinions first.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Hello, Holger. I would like to thank you for your superb website. I'm certain I've read every word (in English, at least), and learned alot from your comparisons. I wonder if you (or anyone else) can help me with a subject I have been frustrated in researching... It would seem to me that applying black paint the non-polished side surfaces of porro prisms, in addition to adding light shields like those in the Audubon 804 HR/5 would significantly diminish the prism bleeding I see in most porro prism binoculars. I have yet to own a porro binocular that has been so treated (although I have read that it has been done). Why wouldn't manufacturers take such a seemingly inexpensive measure more often? Are you aware of any binoculars you have compared that might help quantify any potential improvement? I am thinking of modifying my Audubon 804 HR/5 FMC's in this manner, but thought I might ask for opinions first.

Hi Angelo, thanks a lot! Frankly, I haven't tried to tune binoculars in that way - my simple, non-intrusive approach is to add a few cm of lens hood if I face any stray light problems with my binocular, and it helps in 80% of the cases

Blackening components inside the binocular is always a good idea, but how much it would help in each particular sample we don't know in advance. Note that a Porro prism should also have a narrow groove cutting through its base to reduce the danger of side pupils, but most manufacturers don't seem to care.

Regarding the new Audubon, I have to correct my first assessment of its power: A rather careful measurement delivered in fact a value between 8.4x and 8.5x, so everything is fine with that (the field of view, however, is about 137m/1000m, not 144m/1000m as printed on the binocular). Altogether, I like this "B&L Discoverer ED", it is quite handy and feels well, its focuser is working precisely and without any flexing of the ocular bridge.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[brocknroller]

I have just got a sample of this new version of the 820 ED. It is a deja vu experience: It feels precisely like the B&L Discoverer which I owned a couple of years ago (and which I used quite a lot that times). I find a couple of discrepancies between specs on the Swift webpage and my own measurements:

Specs on http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/binoculars.html#820

weight: 682g
field of view: 143m/1000m
power: 8.5

My own measurements delivered:

weight: 800g
field of view: 137m/1000m
power: 8

Yes, I see no difference whatsoever between my 8x power binoculars and the magnification of the Swift. I haven't measured its apparent field of view, it is slightly above 60 degs, less than 65 for sure.

Funny is: The objective lens diameter is in fact 44mm, the exit pupil about 5.2mm, which doesn't fit together with 8x power. There may be a baffle stopping down the entrance pupil.

This binocular is not bad, with a bright and crisp image no doubt, but its parameters differ quite a bit from specifications.

Wild guess: They took the old B&L discoverer, added ED objectives and the Swift logo, and ready was the new 820 ED.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger.

Thanks for those observations on the "new" 820. I've been interested in this version, because I tried the original, and the oversized, hard plastic eyecups and the protruding center post were a very poor fit for my face, I couldn't get the EPs close enough to my eyes to see the entire FOV. The B&L version eyecups also look big, but different than the original 820. Do you find the eyecups comfortable?

As to your guess about the new 820 being a re-badged B&L Discoverer, I thought you couldn't add an ED element to existing doublet without having to reconfigure the other element(s) to match it? I remember this discussion about some bins, perhaps the Nikon HGs, and one of the experts said that.

If the new 820 is a re-badged 8x42 B&L, that must mean the five element HR/5 EPs are gone, and from what I've read about the Audubon, that 5-element EP configuration made the images very sharp.

Have you tried the original 820? If so, how does the B&L version compare in terms of overall image quality and off-axis performance?

Someone did a review earlier of the new model, and he wasn't happy with the fit and finish and untidiness inside the tubes. My original 820 was pretty shoddily constructed. There were lumps on the paint of the frame, which I thought was dust, so I flicked them with my finger, and the paint chipped off! The dust was under the paint, and the paint was rather thinly applied.

Also, the black paint on the frame was gloss black while the paint on the focuser rack was flat black. The armoring was thin, and I could see every nook and cranny in the housing underneath it, probably not as noticeable on the black ED version. The armoring on the B&L version seems thicker, similar to the 828 Audubon roof, rather than a "skin" like the original 820.

The focuser bridge also flexed, as mentioned above. Is the focuser bridge more rigid on this model?

Perhaps the prisms intruding into light path are cutting down the exit pupils? I noticed this on the original 820, a bit more on one side than the other. Back when Swift Sports Optics was part of the parent company, I got to talk to a Swift optics technician, who said not to worry about it, the vignetting was the way it was designed and wouldn't be noticeable in the field.

Arek also noted the prism cut off, though the vignetting in his sample was less than mine:

Swift 820 Audubon review

Finally, how smooth is the focuser? WP porros often have stiff focusers.

Brock

 

[angelo225544]

Hi Angelo, thanks a lot! Frankly, I haven't tried to tune binoculars in that way - my simple, non-intrusive approach is to add a few cm of lens hood if I face any stray light problems with my binocular, and it helps in 80% of the cases

I have already added homemade two 25mm long lens hoods to my 804 HR/5, each made from a stack of four 62mm filter mounts with the glass removed. I was very surprised at how close the objective is to the end of the tube - close enough to allow the objective to touch any non-rigid surface they are set upon, such as upholstery or even in their case.

Blackening components inside the binocular is always a good idea, but how much it would help in each particular sample we don't know in advance. Note that a Porro prism should also have a narrow groove cutting through its base to reduce the danger of side pupils, but most manufacturers don't seem to care.

The 804 HR/5 does have a prism groove, and even prism shields on the exposed polished surfaces of the objective-facing prism. I can't help but think that a certain amount of light would bleed though the fully exposed non-polished side surface of this prism, and how simple this would be to remedy. Perhaps what I envision happening, in fact does't happen. Perhaps light entering a prism in this manner does not impact the image forming light passing through it. I don't understand the principals of light travelling within a porro prism well enough to predict what effect, if any, this type of stray light has.

Regarding the new Audubon, I have to correct my first assessment of its power: A rather careful measurement delivered in fact a value between 8.4x and 8.5x, so everything is fine with that (the field of view, however, is about 137m/1000m, not 144m/1000m as printed on the binocular). Altogether, I like this "B&L Discoverer ED", it is quite handy and feels well, its focuser is working precisely and without any flexing of the ocular bridge.

Your initial comments had me puzzled, because my 804 is most certainly 8.5x, as was the 820 I briefly owned. So perhaps the new 820 is an optical carry-over in a new body. If they have solved the wobbling bridge issue, this may be a binocular worthy of serious consideration.

 

[angelo225544]

Arek also noted the prism cut off, though the vignetting in his sample was less than mine:

Swift 820 Audubon review

Finally, how smooth is the focuser? WP porros often have stiff focusers.

Brock

Hi, Brock. For what it's worth, my 804 Hr/5s have an identically sized and shaped exit pupil obstruction as shown in the photo in the Allbinos review of the 820. I don't know if the removable prism shelf of the 804 was retained in the 820, but the basic prism configuration looks identical.