Telescope Reviews: Will The REAL Audubon Please Stand Up

Bill, it is no accident that I too pointed at the Audubon 820 in order to show how bad is the present interaction between demand and supply. I am sorry for rapping on the knuckles of Swift when its trend is widespread in the today’s market. It happened because it is irritating that Swift itself missed the opportunity to market a quite good binocular in the medium-price range, assembling good optics in a body that is a little bit more than a toy. Indeed the technical decline of the 8.5x44 is a perfect example of how times are changing for binoculars lovers.
Do we want that our binocular is waterproof and light at the same time, and in addition not too expensive? Then let’s be content with those plastic bridges and the consequent see-saw effect.
No doubt that, by following the requirements of a less educated but much larger band of buyers, Swift will sell the new version much more than did with the previous ones.
I post again my contribution on this theme (it has been written for the Abrahams Forum and a part of it appeared in the CN thread “Swift binos with ED glass”), though I don’t expect to see new versions of the 8.5x with improved bridge. Most likely, what we will see next time will be a superlight waterproof Nikon EII with ...

Cheers
Claudio

<<< This is a contribution to the thoughts of Hans Seeger on the quality of
current cheap and medium-priced binoculars offer.

I agree with him that most of these binoculars seem to be made to turn away
neophytes from this fascinating instrument. It is not a matter of optical
performances, that in many of them could be considered acceptable and
sometimes good. The biggest problem in cheap to medium-priced binoculars is
the not quiet view, to use the words I think Hans Seeger would use.
A quiet view is the result of many factors, I would list them in the
following order of importance: perfect axes alignment, perfect focusing
system, well sized and well corrected exit pupil, sufficient and adjustable
eye relief (neither too long nor too short), no residual chromatic
aberration at least in the centre of the view, low astigmatism at the edge
of the field, balanced and ergonomic construction, stereoscopic and plastic
view, (etc.).

The first two factors, in my opinion the most important ones, don't depend
on the optical quality of the binocular, but on its mechanical features,
and on how much time the factory spends for assembling and adjusting each
sample. Perfect alignment between mechanical axis and optical axes requires
that the mechanical structure of the binocular allows precision adjustments
and keeps the axes aligned after collimating them. In low-priced production
the axes collimation is often something just roughly achieved, though I
would say that the so called conditional alignment is still a compromise
accepted only in the worst glasses.

However, even if well collimated, a binocular cannot give a good view if
the focusing system doesn't work properly. When focusing as well as when
changing the IPD, a floppy focusing system causes significant changes of
alignment of the eyepieces,. Moreover, when focusing the balance between
left and right eyepiece varies considerably, inducing to re-adjust the
right eyepiece correction very often and to re-focus frequently.

The eye strain induced by misalignment and/or floppy focusing mechanism is
what turns away potential new binocular lovers. In my opinion these
problems were less common before the seventies. In the last thirty years
the proliferation of binoculars with reduced weight and size, super wide
FOV and often with excessive or variable magnification, has accentuated the
problem. Now, from cheap glasses we cannot pretend too much, but when we
are spending $250 for a binocular, we certainly expect to get some degree
of quality.

I will give only one example, but there are many more. The new Swift
8,5x44 is thought to be a very recommendable binocular. In my opinion, it
is a wonderful example to understand the present bad interaction between
demand and offer. As the old Swift 8,5x44 was too heavy and bulky for the
current taste, besides being not waterproof, the manufacturer used in the
new version polycarbonate instead of alloy even for the ocular bridges,
whereas metal is necessary to get the required rigidity. In addition, in
order to get a waterproofing that I would name showerproofing, they put up
to three O rings around the ocular tube working with a damping grease
between ocular tube and ocular sleeve. As a result, the (thin!) plastic
bridges cannot support the work of moving both oculars in a perfect
simultaneous way. Moreover, the helicoidal thread of the right eyepiece
dioptre correction has too much side play and this, despite its damping
grease, adds further variation to the eyepieces focus balance. During this
dance the ocular tubes (or at least the right one with its side play) tilt
a bit so that also the axes alignment varies sensibly. To conclude (I will
omit other disconcerting details), what could have been a good binocular at
an affordable price (optics are quite good, at least in the centre of view)
has become a good example of how much the mechanical design affects the
final quality of the binocular. The Nikon 8x30 E2, similar price range,
shows a completely different philosophy that doesn't follow the fashion,
with a central focusing design thought to maintain perfect eyepieces
balance and correct alignment when focusing.

So, coming back to the other themes touched on by Hans Seeger, how could be
helpful an ideal "binocular advisor" at the shop? And, if misalignment is
so frequent in brand new binoculars, could he detect, judge and correct it?

Let's start with the latter question. As explained, misalignment in brand
new glasses, especially in the medium price range, is more often the
consequence of a bad focusing mechanism. This is a discontinuous
misalignment that cannot be corrected by working on the collimation points
(eccentrics, tilting screws etc), but improving the focusing group, which
sometimes requires the patience of Job, and sometimes is just impossible.

However, even if axes were actually misaligned, and even if the collimation
points were easy to reach and to adjust, how could the advisor collimate
them to the mechanical hinge? What he would succeed in getting is a
conditional collimation, i.e. a no collimation.

It would be enough if the "binocular advisor" were able to test with the
naked eye a binocular at different IPD's, detecting alignment problems. But
it would be really helpful if this ideal shop assistant were able to advise
the customer against bad choices: too much magnification, zoom binoculars,
ultra wide angle glasses with terrible aberrations, pocket binoculars with
microscopic exit pupil, low-priced roofs, super light glasses, ruby red
coatings and, let me insist, binoculars with bad focusing systems. Doing it
with in mind the first and most important quality of a binocular, the quiet
view. >>>

The “other disconcerting details” of the new Swift 8.5x44 I mention are:
1. in the sample I disassembled the recesses for the (up to) three O rings of each eyepiece were roughly milled (burrs).
2. each eyepiece has a small O ring just on the border of the eyepiece lens (that one closer to the eye), if you inspect the perimeter of the lens you should detect it. As this O ring doesn’t have a specific recess where to stay, it can happen that, when screwing (at the factory) the ring that works as field stop, in order to close the eyepiece lenses group inside the eyepiece tube, the O ring doesn’t remain precisely on the border of the lens and sometimes a part of the ring invades the lens surface. As a result, the eyepiece lens tilts slightly, and this could affect the optical quality and the alignment, though honestly I did not detect loss of quality due to this.

Brock,

I am attaching my post that you are referring to. It was posted to BinocularAstronomy in 9/02 and that one was actually a repost from another group from about 5 or 6 months before that.

Since writing that review I find that I was a bit harsh on the Swift Audubon for astronomy. It's wide field compensates somewhat for the degradation of the field at the edge. Concentrating on the image at field center you can be more forgiving of the view at the edge..

I do like the eyecup comfort, however there is a shortcoming in that the eyecups are either all the way up or all the way down. Subsequent binoculars with twist up or screw up eyecups do have intermediate positions - the Nikon Action Extreme has 3. Anyway, here is that post from 2.5 years ago.
//////////////////

Ruud,

I am attaching a rather long post which I saved as a text file. It is
actually the body of the message that I wrote for one of the "other"
binocular groups last April. Hopefully it will give you more of a feel for
the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 in either ED or regular versions.

Please note that there is some confusion as to just which model is what. I
believe Eagle Optics lists these models correctly and has the correct "black"
body picture of the ED version. The 804 designation is the older body style
porro with the leatherette covering which has been superseded by the new
series, I believe 820, which are now waterproof, and have better eye relief.

While these binoculars are not great at the edge of the field (they do not
come close to the Canon Image Stabilized, Nikon Superior E, or even the
Fujinon FMT-SX in this regard), they are better than many, and certainly
have great center of field sharpness. Anyway, here is the complete article
from last April.

I have got to be nuts! Why do I need another pair of binoculars? I don't, I
guess it is just the collector in me and the continued search for perfection,
for I had not found that yet (and still have not).

In a nutshell- the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED is a very attractive, ruggedly
built, wide-field, waterproof porro prism binocular with center focus which
performs very well for most daytime uses and is ok but far from perfect on
the stars.

More info-about a year ago I was seriously interested in the new Swift
Audubon 8.5x44. During the summer of 2000 they were very hard to get and for
a while were unavailable as there was a problem with the eyepieces unscrewing
(messing up the waterproofing). They went thru a minor redesign/fix. By the
time they were available again I had already purchased an equivalent pair in
the Eagle Optics Raptor.

The Raptor is sold exclusively by Eagle Optics. It is available as an 8x42 or
a 10x42. It is actually a Vixen Foresta. Comparison with the new Swift
Audubon shows amazing similarities to the point where I will say they are
made by the same company in Japan with some minor external differences plus
the obvious small difference in objective size. The pictures that I have just
posted to the Files Section will bear this out.

When I got the Eagle Raptors in the summer of 2000 (which were not sold to me
as or recommended in any way for astronomy), I was disappointed that the
images did break down considerably near the field edge for astronomy. Even in
daytime use the edge of the field (outer 20%) was noticeably distorted on
objects such as distant
chimneys. Given that the field of these binoculars is 8.8 degrees true (70
degrees apparent), this really is a small price to pay for the wide view as
you essentially still get a 6.5 to 7 degree true field with good image
definition and an outer field that will help you capture rapidly moving birds
if they are your targets. I subsequently found that the sharpness/resolution
of these binoculars was really second to none in my collection.

Other nice features on the Eagle Raptors include the well placed central
focusing wheel (between the two hinges), the waterproofing, and the screw up
and down eyecups with a fairly broad upper rim which I find to be
comfortable. The eye relief is listed at 17 mm and I find the eye relief to
be adequate for me. The binoculars also focus down to 10 feet which is nice.
There is also a nice tripod socket (see the
pictures with the internal spring loaded ball bearing) which does not require
a screw in cap. These binoculars are rugged and do not have to be coddled as
some other pair need to be. I found that they were my go to binoculars for
daytime use and I believe most of you birders should be very happy with them
at their $258 price.

So why get a very similar pair in the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED? First of all I
recently looked thru the new fixed and revised Swift Audubon 8.5x44 binocular
and I have to admit that the edge of field image is noticeably better than
the Eagle Raptor. The field is a bit smaller at 8.2 degrees, but it is
better. As I had the Raptors I resisted the Audubons for the past year.
Additionally I did not like Swift's coordination of colors (function is
important to me, but so is form). I felt that the medium gray rubber body
covering with the black hinges and eyepieces was somewhat retro and
butt-ugly. Well, Swift has come up with an answer to that in the ED version
of this binocular with a solid black body. Much nicer looking plus the
trademark Swift logo on one barrel, yellow-gold in the regular non-ED
version, and I believe blue in the Ultra-Lite, is a very nice amber-orange in
the ED. Well, all of this information caught me in a weak moment, so they
were ordered (from Eagle Optics for $378, which is $110 more than the non-ED
version).

The salesman told me that you will notice the difference that the ED glass
gives you with better color definition and less false color along the edges
of bright objects. So in the spirit of giving all of you more information on
if this is really so, I further justified the order.

Well, they did arrive Thursday and they passed the first hurdle - they were
well packed and were not damaged in any way. Assessment of the binoculars
was done at my testing stand (my second floor bedroom window) with many
nice test objects to the south including chimneys, trees, flowers, birds
(includes Quaker parrots), letters and numerals of various sizes on my
neighbor's air conditioning condenser unit, houses and street lights. The
Eagle Raptors were used for comparison purposes.

I found that this pair was typical of what I expected. The field was ever so
slightly less than the Eagle Raptors, the resolution was equivalent, the
field edge was much nicer, at least on the brick work of a chimney about 300
to 350 ft. away. Looking at the edge of a bright, white gutter I could see
that the ED glass showed much less false violet and green when the gutter was
brought to the edge of the field. Not that the Eagle Raptor was bad, it
wasn't, it did have more false color though, but not objectionable.

Additionally I found that the Audubons do focus a bit closer, down to 9.5
feet! I also held both binoculars in such a way (belly to belly) where I
could look thru a barrel of each at the same time and line up various targets
to see if I could detect the difference between 8.5x and 8x. I could, but it
was very slight.

Looking at the binoculars side by side, they are amazingly alike. Look at
the photos I have posted. The hinge, focuser and tripod socket assembly are
identical. The eye cups on the Raptors screw up and down which is nice. This
also allows you to set them in a "middle position". On the Audubon ED the eye
cups lift and twist. There is no middle position available, either all the
way up or all the way down. The eye relief is listed at 17 mm and I find it
to be fine for me with the eye cups up. With the eye cups up however the edge
of the field is not sharp as I am not seeing quite all of it. I have to
retract the eye cups to do that and then you have to "float" your
eyes in the right position, they cannot be steadied against the cups as that
position would be too close and I know I would quickly get eyelash marks on
the eyepieces.

One other point about the eye cups on the Swift Audubons - they have to be
fully retracted to fit the binoculars in the case. The case itself is much
like the cases I am familiar with that come with the Celestron Ultima
binoculars - stiff but padded, with the latch offset on the front. I liked
the soft case that came with my older Swift Audubon Kestrel 10x50 (now sold)
better. The Audubons do come with a nice wide black and yellow strap.

The Eagle Raptor comes with a green nylon zippered hiking sack as pictured.
For day hikes I believe the Eagle Raptor case is a better one. Last night I
did have a chance to try both of these binoculars plus my Carton Adlerblick
8x42 binoculars on the night sky. The ED glass in the Audubons does make a
difference. I saw no false color on Sirius or Jupiter. I found however that
the large majority of stars are too faint for false color to be a real issue
at these low 8x and 8.5x powers. In respect to the edge of field definition,
I was surprised and disappointed to see that the good edge definition that I
saw with daytime use did not carryover to nighttime. My first target was the
constellation Orion and the 3 belt stars did distort a good bit near the
field edge. The Swift Audubon ED's were better than the Eagle Raptors but not
as good as the Carton Adlerblicks. While the Raptors have a listed 8.8
degree field, the Audubons an 8.2 and the Adlerblicks a 6.5, the practical
difference on the night sky was slight (using beta Aurigae and another bright
star approximately 7.8 degrees away according to the charts). The two target
stars could just be captured with the Audubons, you could see a bit more to
either side with the Raptors, and you could just not quite get both of them
with the Adlerblicks. The Adlerblicks overall gave a much nicer, comfortable
view of the night sky in this initial test under less than optimal
conditions. It remains my best 8x40/8x42/8.5x44 binocular for the night sky,
especially from home.

If one is looking for a fairly rugged, waterproof binocular ideal for daytime
use and fairly good for occasional astronomy, the Swift Audubon ED is a very
nice choice. In fact right now if I could only keep two pair of binoculars
for all my varied interests, primarily astronomy and general daytime use, my
choices would be the Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70 and these Swift Audubon 8.5x44
ED's. I would pick the Audubons primarily because of their positive
features, the fact that they are waterproof and their very nice optical
performance (especially in the central 80% of the field) in spite of the fact
that their edge definition for astronomy is not as good as a few other pair
that I own.

While the Swift Audubon ED's are ok for astronomy, they are not great and
certainly would not be recommended by me if someone was looking for one good
handheld use binocular for astronomy. With binoculars that I am familiar with
or trust highly the opinion of others greatly, astronomy recommendations
would include the 7x50 Fujinon FMT-SX, the Carton Adlerblick 7x50, the Carton
Adlerblick 8x42, and the Nikon Superior E 10x42.

A recommendation in a 10x50 binocular becomes more difficult, they either
have a small field that many will find unacceptable (Pentax PCF V 10x50 with
a 5 degree field, plus a number of 10x50's with 5.3 degree fields) or they
have too much edge distortion. The Minolta Activa gets a mild recommendation
as a good moderate priced 10x50 binocular with a very nice build quality,
nice features, a very nice case, very good eye cups for astronomy and at a
price under $200.00. I like the Pentax 10x50 too as well as the Carton
Adlerblick, but I believe there should be a 10x50 binocular with a 6.5
degree field and better edge definition than any of these can give you. I am
off the subject though, this posting is supposed to be about the Swift
Audubon 8.5x44 ED, so let me summarize:

The Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED is a very attractive (all black body) ruggedly
built binocular (rubber over magnesium) BaK 4, fully multi-coated porro prism
binocular that has ED glass. It is moderately priced and performs very nicely
with good edge of field definition that birders and hikers will appreciate.
With a 5.1 mm exit pupil and moderate 17 mm eye relief it will appeal to most
binocular users. It falls a little short for astronomy, while it does have a
nice, wide field of view, the edge definition is not on par with the Fujinon
FMT-SX series, the Nikon Superior E, the Canon Image Stabilized, the Carton
Adlerblick or even the Pentax PCF series (20x60, 16x60, 12x50, 10x50 or
7x50). If you intend to use a binocular primarily for astronomy, this should
not be it. Note that you will not really notice too much of a difference
going to the ED glass. You will save over $100 with the regular Audubon and a
bit more with the Eagle Raptor. The Audubon does have a better field edge,
but the Raptor has a slightly wider field of view and a better case for field
use.

In addition the case on the Audubons does have a few shortcomings -
the fit of the binoculars and strap is tight. The covering of the case is not
sufficiently rugged to survive many trips into tight places, thru brush,
etc., without some damage. As the primary purpose of this binocular is
birding, the case should be redesigned with the birder in mind.

I invite any questions.

Barry Simon

Edited by BarrySimon615 (03/27/05 08:09 PM)