Scope survey. (2 Viewers)

Tim Allwood said:

Scampo is yer man for optics reviews

reviews in the birding press are not worth a jot

make your own mind up in the field

Click to expand...

Thanks to our totally out-of-touch local WHS, I haven't been able to see the review. What seems certain is that the Opticron ES80, the Zeiss 85 and the Nikon ED82 are all very fine scopes that have each had excellent reviews elsewhere. Indeed, Andy Bright has reviewed the Zeiss and spoke very highly of it - calling it class-beating from sonme aspects.

Well - I look forward to seeing the article to see how they came to apparently very different conclusions.

IanF said:

What does it matter the shape when it's wrapped inside a SOC?...

Click to expand...

A very good point, Ian. I suppose they could have been referring to the optical design? Nah - that would take a bit of genuine research to discover...

(-:

OK, Ok..... I'll go and buy the mag, read the review, and THEN I'll fume.....

scampo said:

I don't think they come much lighter, Diane - or am I forgetting its weight? I recall mine being similar to the older Kowa TSN series - and they were lightweights.

Click to expand...

I can't really compare the weight of the ES80 to the Kowa, as I have never picked one up.

I am comparing mine with the weight of my sister's Zeiss 65 on the same tripod as mine (Manfrotto 443 carbo fibre) and would maybe plump for something on that scale now that I am no longer digiscoping. I quite like the Leica 62, but haven't really tested one in the field. The Leica stand at the NEC last week had one on display, but it's not quite the same looking at rafters and ducting running along a roof! Anyway, it may be a while yet before I can think of changing.

I see. I wonder why have you stopped digiscoping? I've just begun - but have realised my Velbon tripod and head just isn't up to it. Money, money, money, eh?

scampo said:

Isee. I wonder why have you stopped digiscoping? I've just begun - but have realised my Velbon tripod and head just isn't up to it. Money, money, money, eh?

Click to expand...

I wasn't getting the results that I expected, after two years of trying, and just decided that enough was enough. I'm not even sure that I will get any better reuslts with the DSLR, but I will die trying, having forked out a small fortune!

I started with a Velbon tripod and soon switched back to our original Manfrotto for more stability. Then I switched to the carbon fibre because of the weight of all the kit. Now I just take my tripod and just the camera and let Keith take his scope and I look through that if I need to. I have been doing it this way only since missing a shot of the Red Kite at Rutland the other week, where taking the scope off the tripod and putting the camera on was enough to cause me to lose the shot as the bird flew just as I focused on it!

It certainly is a frustrating hobby - I've learned that already. There are many red kites seen over RW, but they are nowhere near as reliable or "tame" as the mid-Wales ones. Photographing a flying bird must be the most difficult of all subjects -esp. when so highly magnified.

scampo said:

It certainly is a frustrating hooby - I've learned that already. There are many red kites seen over RW, but they are nowhere near as reliable or "tame" as the mid-Wales ones. Photographing a flying bird must be the most difficult of all subjects -esp. when so highly magnified.

Click to expand...

This particular bird had landed on a branch with a grouse it had just picked up from a field next to the road. In perfect view, perfect light, not too distant. Grrr! I'll be back to try again sometime.

I should have said in my earlier post that I had been blaming the ES80 for my lack of success with digiscoping, having seen that everyone else was using the higher-priced scopes. I pulled myself up after having already changed tripod, adapter, camera, etc. I have seen photos taken with the 995 and the ES80, so I know it can be done, just not by me, obviously.

I've seen some outstanding photos taken with the ES80, too.

BTW if that was a grouse in its claws you were doubly unlucky - I have yet to see a grouse in this area. Bad luck.

scampo said:

BTW if that was a grouse in its claws you were doubly unlucky - I have yet to see a grouse in this area. Bad luck.

Click to expand...

Doh! Partridge! Too much ironing has addled my brain.

(-:

Well, disapponting to report, if it was a grey partridge, even they are not something you can easily find any longer. The French red-legged variety are still reasonably common, though.

scampo said:

(-:

Well, disapponting to report, if it was a grey partridge, even they are not something you can easily find any longer. The French red-legged variety are still reasonably common, though.

Click to expand...

'Twas indeed the red-legged.

digi-birder said:

I am comparing mine with the weight of my sister's Zeiss 65 on the same tripod as mine (Manfrotto 443 carbo fibre) and would maybe plump for something on that scale now that I am no longer digiscoping. I quite like the Leica 62, but haven't really tested one in the field. The Leica stand at the NEC last week had one on display, but it's not quite the same looking at rafters and ducting running along a roof! Anyway, it may be a while yet before I can think of changing.

Click to expand...

the Zeiss 65 is about 230g lighter than your opticron Diane. Given that a certain person (hi Scampo!!) is trying to convince me 190g is nothing on a pair of bins then I'm surprised you noticed The Leica 62 apo is 305g lighter.

How does your Sisters Zeiss compare Optically? its approx £400 morethan your ES80.

pduxon said:

the Zeiss 65 is about 230g lighter than your opticron Diane. Given that a certain person (hi Scampo!!) is trying to convince me 190g is nothing on a pair of bins then I'm surprised you noticed The Leica 62 apo is 305g lighter.

How does your Sisters Zeiss compare Optically? its approx £400 morethan your ES80.

Click to expand...

What's 230g in old money?! Never mind, I just know it felt lighter and is definitely more compact.

I lifted up the Leica scope last week - can't remember what tripod it was connected to - and it felt really lightweight.

The Zeiss 65 is an excellent scope. I can't remember how much my sister paid for it - she had the zoom lens with it. I think it was in the region of £900. When we went to the east coast on 1st Jan we compared the view through the ES80 and Zeiss 65 and the difference was evident, but not outstanding. I would need to perform a more thorough comparison before making any definite judgement.

digi-birder said:

What's 230g in old money?! Never mind, I just know it felt lighter and is definitely more compact.

Click to expand...

approx 8 ounces

I've now got a copy of the reviews. I must say the results do not match my own experiences over the last month.

The description of the view through the Swaro 80 HD is absurd to the point of being comical: "One tester described the view as 'superlative - I simply want more!' and the common statement from the testers was that this scope provides an image with a 'joy and naturalness'". What a load of complete bull. I bet Swarovski are opening the bottles of bubbly at this free advertising. I was surprised at the slight colour fringing halfway to edge of the field through the 32xw and the zoom. I also found the Swaro zoom a bit hard to view through due to persistent black-out. (Neither 'fault' was mentioned.)

People at Nikon and Zeiss must be pretty angry.

I thought the Nikon scope rather good, with an image that rivalled the Swarovski 80 HD. To my eyes it seemed more natural and a tad brighter. BW pan it, describing it as an "ill-proportioned model". I thought it remarkably compact, and hence well balanced on a tripod. It also seemed lighter than on paper. Oddly they tested the Nikon with a 38xw eyepiece and other makes with a ~30xw eyepiece. They then conclude that "The extra magnification meant field of view and depth of field were worse than the lower-powered models". Evidently the testers included one Albert Einstein, freshly disinterred for the day. Hardly a fair comparison is it?

Interestingly they mention the slight softness at the edge of the Zeiss field but do not mention the obvious distortion at the edge of the field in the Leica zoom. Odd that. They also don't mention the extra sharpness and brightness of the Zeiss. In fact they consider the Zeiss less bright than many others. Again this is very odd. I am surprised they did not mention the cheap looking plastic eyepiece release buttons on the Leica and Swaro scopes. The one on the Leica was especially irritating and impossible to use with gloves on. Both were a bit cheesy.

These reviews are decidedly unreliable IMO. I bet they will heavily influence sales and the second hand value though.

It all goes to prove what's been said time and time again on this forum - you have to try scopes and bins yourself to see what suits you and not to rely on these reviews.

I tried some Leica Ultravids last week and could not get them to feel 'right' for my eyes and they were not as comfortable to hold as my Nikons. Yet my other half loved them.

pduxon said:

the Zeiss 65 is about 230g lighter than your opticron Diane. Given that a certain person (hi Scampo!!) is trying to convince me 190g is nothing on a pair of bins then I'm surprised you noticed The Leica 62 apo is 305g lighter.

How does your Sisters Zeiss compare Optically? its approx £400 morethan your ES80.

Click to expand...

Pete - oooh! These People Who Do Not Read My Posts!!!

((-:

90 grams, not 190 - about 3oz. in the scampo system. Now 190g is a bit much.

digi-birder said:

It all goes to prove what's been said time and time again on this forum - you have to try scopes and bins yourself to see what suits you and not to rely on these reviews.

I tried some Leica Ultravids last week and could not get them to feel 'right' for my eyes and they were not as comfortable to hold as my Nikons. Yet my other half loved them.

Click to expand...

I also tried some Ultravids today - 8x42 - and I agree with your comments.

Leif said:

Oddly they tested the Nikon with a 38xw eyepiece and other makes with a ~30xw eyepiece. They then conclude that "The extra magnification meant field of view and depth of field were worse than the lower-powered models".

Click to expand...

Is this Birdwatch magazine? If so, this is very interesting as their original review (Oct 2003) of the Nikon ED82A scope was also with the 38x eyepiece. Hmm - have they really tested it again, I wonder? At the time, I thought this an odd choice of eyepiece for a general review, but their esteemed reviewer then had this to say:

"As with other Nikon products I've tested, the optical performance of the ED82 A was faultless and it performed outstandingly in the gloomy conditions around dusk... Ultimately, for both birders and digiscopers who are searching at the highest-quality end of the market, the Nikon ED82 models should prove to be a hit."
(My emboldening).