Has anyone done a side by side comparison of a Swaro ATS 65 to a Swaro ATS HD 65 and noted its differences & similarities at different magnifications in regards to resolution, brightness, and color fringe? I'm talking about a test that someone has done that has documented the differences in an objective, not subjective, manner. I've heard & read people's opinions, but not seen any actual testing between the two.
-
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.
To HD or not HD? Any actual testing? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter karmantra
- Start date
henry link
Well-known member
I'm not an owner, but I have directly compared an ATS-65 HD to an ATS-80. At 60x the image in the f/7 65mm HD was clearly superior to the f/5.8 80mm non-HD. Dimmer, but sharper and cleaner with much less chromatic aberration. The 65mm non-HD almost certainly has less chromatic aberration than the 80mm just because the objective size is smaller and the focal ratio is higher, but it still wouldn't quite qualify as a true achromat because even f/7 is too fast for a 65mm crown and flint objective (about f/12 is required). Why pay such a large amount for a 65mm scope that isn't even quite achromatic when the 82mm Nikon, 85mm Zeiss and other APO's or near APO's cost about the same or less?
Last edited:
I think I will soon be buying a used ATS 65 in very good condition from someone and the same question came up to me. I searched in german optics forum and have read some postings, they nearly all claim that Swarovski ATS 65 HD is probably the best 65 mm spotting scope - excellent optics in all respects - but actually it´s not worth the extra money (in Germany about 70 % more for the HD version). The ATS 65 (without HD) is considered as a very good scope wich is only marginal inferior to the HD.
scampo
Steve Campsall
The unique aspect of the Zeiss scope is the extraordinarily wide view its zoom offers - something like 50% extra area of view compared with the Swaro zoom, for example (this is calculated on the larger scopes). It has to be said that this is at the expense of some edge softness but in everyday usage, the scope is never used to look at a flat image and so the somewhat softer edges rarely show themselves.
SteveClifton
Well-known member
I thought this thread was about the differences between HD and Non-HD Swarovski scopes. Unfortunately I can't comment on this as I've never looked through a Non-HD model, but would be interested to hear the views of others who have.
When all's said and done, everyone prefers different makes and models, depending on what suits their particular needs, and when happy with their choice, they tend to promote that scope above all others. Scampo, are you sure you aren't working on a commision basis for Zeiss?
No offence intended there Steve, as it was probably down to your recommendations on this forum that I even bothered to look at the Zeiss 85 last year when I upgraded to a new scope. When comparing the Zeiss and Swarovski at 60x, there was no perceivable difference in field of view. The actual differences are only noticeable at lower powers. Personally, I wouldn't use a zoom eyepiece below 30x very often, so the real benefits of the Zeiss zoom would hardly be worthwhile to me. Indeed, many people find other characteristics of the Zeiss zoom very distracting (eg. the edge 'softness' and 'barrel distortion' that some reviewers have reported).
For me, ownership of a top quality scope go beyond just the quality of the view, though obviously this is a major priority. I doubt any of the top makes are anything less than excellent in this respect, so other aspects of the 'ownership experience' become equally important when making your choice.
Though Swarovski are expensive, there are so many examples of excellent customer service on this forum, which gives me piece of mind should something go wrong. I would be fairly certain that the company would fall over themselves to help me out if I did encounter a problem. Can owners of Leica honestly say the same? I get the impression that Zeiss are somewhat better than Leica in this respect, unless you happen to live in the States!
Just some of my personal thoughts. As always, let your own eyes tell you what's best for you, but do take into account what other owners have to say.
When all's said and done, everyone prefers different makes and models, depending on what suits their particular needs, and when happy with their choice, they tend to promote that scope above all others. Scampo, are you sure you aren't working on a commision basis for Zeiss?
No offence intended there Steve, as it was probably down to your recommendations on this forum that I even bothered to look at the Zeiss 85 last year when I upgraded to a new scope. When comparing the Zeiss and Swarovski at 60x, there was no perceivable difference in field of view. The actual differences are only noticeable at lower powers. Personally, I wouldn't use a zoom eyepiece below 30x very often, so the real benefits of the Zeiss zoom would hardly be worthwhile to me. Indeed, many people find other characteristics of the Zeiss zoom very distracting (eg. the edge 'softness' and 'barrel distortion' that some reviewers have reported).
For me, ownership of a top quality scope go beyond just the quality of the view, though obviously this is a major priority. I doubt any of the top makes are anything less than excellent in this respect, so other aspects of the 'ownership experience' become equally important when making your choice.
Though Swarovski are expensive, there are so many examples of excellent customer service on this forum, which gives me piece of mind should something go wrong. I would be fairly certain that the company would fall over themselves to help me out if I did encounter a problem. Can owners of Leica honestly say the same? I get the impression that Zeiss are somewhat better than Leica in this respect, unless you happen to live in the States!
Just some of my personal thoughts. As always, let your own eyes tell you what's best for you, but do take into account what other owners have to say.
"Scampo, are you sure you aren't working on a commision basis for Zeiss?
'ownership experience' become equally important when making your choice.
Though Swarovski are expensive, there are so many examples of excellent customer service on this forum, which gives me piece of mind should something go wrong. I would be fairly certain that the company would fall over themselves to help me out if I did encounter a problem."
[/QUOTE]
And who is working for Swarovski on a commission basis? ....
The main point for "introducint" Zeiss here was to hint at the possibility to consider a new Diascope from a shop as an alternative for a second-hand Swarovski. The retail prices for comparable models (Zeiss 65 T*FL and Swaro 65 HD) are very different in Germany. PeterD who raised the question lives in a region in which the Swaro is 2,5 to 3 times more expensive than the competing Z model.
The world is still awaiting solid proof that the Sw is twice as good or better than the Z(orro), isn't it?
Let's not make it an ideology; for most people money is a substantial factor to be taken into consideration.
Strictly impartial, as no company pays him,
Thomas
PS: Any interested manufacturers, contact me. You'll have my bank account number within 60 minutes (or less) !
'ownership experience' become equally important when making your choice.
Though Swarovski are expensive, there are so many examples of excellent customer service on this forum, which gives me piece of mind should something go wrong. I would be fairly certain that the company would fall over themselves to help me out if I did encounter a problem."
[/QUOTE]
And who is working for Swarovski on a commission basis? ....
The main point for "introducint" Zeiss here was to hint at the possibility to consider a new Diascope from a shop as an alternative for a second-hand Swarovski. The retail prices for comparable models (Zeiss 65 T*FL and Swaro 65 HD) are very different in Germany. PeterD who raised the question lives in a region in which the Swaro is 2,5 to 3 times more expensive than the competing Z model.
The world is still awaiting solid proof that the Sw is twice as good or better than the Z(orro), isn't it?
Let's not make it an ideology; for most people money is a substantial factor to be taken into consideration.
Strictly impartial, as no company pays him,
Thomas
PS: Any interested manufacturers, contact me. You'll have my bank account number within 60 minutes (or less) !
Last edited:
scampo
Steve Campsall
No commission, I'm afraid - I only posted as Henry raised a point about other scopes. There's no doubt that the Swaro is a truly superlative piece of kit, optically and mechanically at least on a par with other leading makes.ThoLa said:
When put aside a Zeiss zoom at 20x, though, the Swaro zoom does seem rather tube-like in comparison. Whilst it's true that the Zeiss has soft outer edge at its lowest power, those edges are a long way further out than any other zoom eyepiece. Importantly, too, as nature rarely if ever provides a flat-field object to fill the field of view, in day-to-day use the edge quality of the Zeiss zoom is surely rather academic.
As for not using a zoom at its lowest power, well, I suspect most people use that power to scan and locate, then zoom in for detail - often only to 40 or 50x, I'd guess, reserving 60x for particular and few occasions. This makes the extra-wide view from the Zeiss useful, as I see it.
In my own experience, I've found the customer service from Swaro to be exemplary but, let's be fair, it comes at a heavy up-front price (>£300 / $580 more expensive than the Zeiss and amazingly, almost £500 / $900 more than the Nikon). My experience of Zeiss and Nikon, for that matter, is also that their customer service is top notch.
Last edited:
DavidP
Well-known member
No actual testing I'm afraid but I have looked thru a non HD (albeit the older Swar AT-80) and a newer Swar ATS 80HD. Can't say that I thought there was a huge difference between the two and both had clear contrasty views.
However there was a comment on a scope review by Pete Dunne (I think on the NJ audubon site) that I thought was quite perceptive. It ran along the lines of if you're going to spend a large amount of money for what really is almost a once in a lifetime or at least a long term purchase do you want to spend the next 10-15 years wondering whether that extra amount to get the HD version would have been worth it. So I think you have to ask yourself that question and it all relates down to your own psychology and how much money you have at the time I guess.
However there was a comment on a scope review by Pete Dunne (I think on the NJ audubon site) that I thought was quite perceptive. It ran along the lines of if you're going to spend a large amount of money for what really is almost a once in a lifetime or at least a long term purchase do you want to spend the next 10-15 years wondering whether that extra amount to get the HD version would have been worth it. So I think you have to ask yourself that question and it all relates down to your own psychology and how much money you have at the time I guess.
stabor
Well-known member
Again, no actual testing, but I compared the "big three" in January and ended up with a Swarovski 80 HD. I carefully compared the Swaro HD and non-HD, using the zoom eyepiece, and the difference was clear when viewing contrasty objects against the sky. I knew I would always notice and be annoyed by the color fringing, though it was not that obtrusive. How it might hinder identifications in the field I don't know, but it was a possibility. I'm now using the HD with the 30x eyepiece (the zoom doesn't work as well with my glasses) and am thoroughly happy with the combination. No regrets, especially since I beat the recent price rise!
SteveClifton
Well-known member
Scampo and ThoLa, you both make some excellent points about the Zeiss. I'm sure that if, like the both of you, I'd chosen one instead of the Swarovski, I would have been equally satisfied with it (and perhaps also the Nikon). Of course there are faults with the Swaro, and yes the zoom is rather tube-like at 20x, but I'm still happy to live with it as a compromise, having weighed-up the competition. When I bought it, I knew what I wanted, but had it in mind that if there was a substantially better scope available, I would give it serious consideration. It's just my personal view that the others weren't better (taking into account, cost, quality of image, ease of use, weight, construction and design etc), though some are admittedly better in some of these respects.
A price difference of £300 would not make a huge difference to my choice, on something that should be a once or twice in a lifetime purchase, though I can recognise that it might make or break the deal for some. I had no idea that there was such a price difference in parts of Europe, so yes, it's a bit of a no-brainer to pay so much more for one make, when the competitors are about 50% of the price of a Swaro in parts of Europe.
If indeed I were being paid commision by Swarovski, perhaps they would answer my request to design a true wide-angle 25-50x zoom, which would be my ideal eyepiece. I doubt it though!
A price difference of £300 would not make a huge difference to my choice, on something that should be a once or twice in a lifetime purchase, though I can recognise that it might make or break the deal for some. I had no idea that there was such a price difference in parts of Europe, so yes, it's a bit of a no-brainer to pay so much more for one make, when the competitors are about 50% of the price of a Swaro in parts of Europe.
If indeed I were being paid commision by Swarovski, perhaps they would answer my request to design a true wide-angle 25-50x zoom, which would be my ideal eyepiece. I doubt it though!
scampo said:
Yes, most probably.
I have recently eaten my way - or tried to - through an extensive indepth treatment of the physical theory of optical abberations. Being only a biologist, I have come to appreciate that the engineers and physicists must with all likelihood doing quite a good job (already).
A true wide-angle zoom eyepiece would probably be technically feasible (if NASA or the Pentagon paid for it) - but sensitive customers would probably bemoan optical deficiencies of all sorts. If these would be corrected to the extend they are compensated for in a fixed magnification device prices would probably explode.
Zeiss recently boasted the fact that they had built a 17000 mm telephoto lens for a camera (Hasselblad I think)! It had been commissioned and they only built a single unit! They did neither reveal the customer nor the price.
I guess if you approached them with your specifications for the eyepiece that once and for all settles all desires for any other eyepiece they would actually build it. One piece only, name engraved.
If you have it made, organize a beach party. I guess there are a couple of people who would travel some distance to peep through it ....
I have the 23x eyepiece for the Diascope and it is spectacular (68 degrees apparent fov). I have never looked through their zoom .... but it tempts me. I also understand that its design is probably much for demanding.
but if the "final zoom" for the ultimate scope was ever built ..... what would be talking about then?
Cheers,
Thomas
Seeeing as this thread is still banging on about zooms I might as well chip in.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Baader zoom which provides the wide apparent field of the Zeiss zoom but is optically better according to Henry Link's review and cheaper (though not waterproof).
It would be interesting for those who appreciate the Zeiss zoom so much to put this on a Swarovski via the astro adapter. In other words there is a wide field zoom available for the swaro and zeiss so there is no reason to exclude the swaro on that basis. Had I still got my Swaro 65 I would have tried this zoom.(Sold only for financial reasons).
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Baader zoom which provides the wide apparent field of the Zeiss zoom but is optically better according to Henry Link's review and cheaper (though not waterproof).
It would be interesting for those who appreciate the Zeiss zoom so much to put this on a Swarovski via the astro adapter. In other words there is a wide field zoom available for the swaro and zeiss so there is no reason to exclude the swaro on that basis. Had I still got my Swaro 65 I would have tried this zoom.(Sold only for financial reasons).
scampo
Steve Campsall
I suspect we'd all like to try it to see first. The criticism of the Zeiss zoom is usually at the level of its edge sharpness. This is fair criticism when a flat target is viewed but in practical use it's simply not noticeable. I'd like to see a zoom with Nikon's true-to-life colour and Zeiss's wide fov myself! The Swaro optics are excellent but the view is rather too cool in hue for me.dipped said:
Last edited:
To HD or not HD - that is not the only question
In theory the HD version would give cleaner images at higher magnifications. Colour fringing would be more visible with objects of high contrast in the non HD scope. Thus if you want to use the scope for digiscoping the results with an HD scope are often better. That said in optics we have a couple of other aberrations that varies from sample to sample. I have seen a Swarovski ATS 80 Non HD that outperformed a Zeiss 85 FL Diascope probably because that sample of the Zeiss was slightly misaligned. Also the Non HD Swaro still has better contrast than the Zeiss scope. I have also seen another Zeiss Diascope that performed slightly better than a Swaro ATS HD.
I think that Swaro 65 ATS is due to a favorable focal ratio in fact one of the best non HD scopes that can compete with lots of scopes call themselves ED, FL or whatever. Situations when the difference to a HD 65 Swaro is clearly visible in real birdwatching could be quite rare. It depends also on purpose you want to use the scope mainly. At the water high contrast situations arise frequently while at the mountains and woodlands they are more of an exception.
No matter of the results of theory and any test available out there I would always prefer to examine the scopes side by side by myself.
Steve
In theory the HD version would give cleaner images at higher magnifications. Colour fringing would be more visible with objects of high contrast in the non HD scope. Thus if you want to use the scope for digiscoping the results with an HD scope are often better. That said in optics we have a couple of other aberrations that varies from sample to sample. I have seen a Swarovski ATS 80 Non HD that outperformed a Zeiss 85 FL Diascope probably because that sample of the Zeiss was slightly misaligned. Also the Non HD Swaro still has better contrast than the Zeiss scope. I have also seen another Zeiss Diascope that performed slightly better than a Swaro ATS HD.
I think that Swaro 65 ATS is due to a favorable focal ratio in fact one of the best non HD scopes that can compete with lots of scopes call themselves ED, FL or whatever. Situations when the difference to a HD 65 Swaro is clearly visible in real birdwatching could be quite rare. It depends also on purpose you want to use the scope mainly. At the water high contrast situations arise frequently while at the mountains and woodlands they are more of an exception.
No matter of the results of theory and any test available out there I would always prefer to examine the scopes side by side by myself.
Steve
Last edited:
Thank you Steve! I had wondered if the difference between the two might be in the eye of the beholder--I have looked through both (but not at the same time for comparision) and really did not see any difference. I would assume however that in sky viewing and in high contrast that the HD would show less color fringing (never been a bother, I just don't see it!), but brightness and resolution should be the same. I do not digiscope--I'm sure HD would probably be a bit more color-true. Swaro wants a $600 preminum between a HD & non-HD 65 (used to be more like $300), but I can't fault Swaro's marketing--they still sell their scopes! I am looking at other scopes, but if there was some actual side-by-side comparisions I would still like to see them. Thanks!
scampo said:
That is certainly the way I do it. And it is precisely why I love to use a zoom eyepiece.
As for that steep extra price Swarovski is asking: I have always been of the opinion that Swiss people are among the most over-insured. But reading all those arguments about peace-of-mind in case anything happens to one's optics, makes me think that ornithologists all over the world must be very good customers for whatever insurance company.
Similar threads
