Swaro 80HD, Leica 77APO, Fieldscope ED82: and the winner is....... (1 Viewer)

First an apology.
I am almost certain that this question is not new. I welcome the info where to find the appropriate thread on birdforum.

I “digiscope” with a Nikon combi: Coolpix 4500 and scope 80A (Rai II or Sky & Earth). I have all the Nikon adapters and attachments. It’s fun, but I want a better quality 80-scope.
I did quite some reseach, and have filtered it down to Leica APO 77, Swarovski 80HD and Fieldscope ED 82. I am happy that I made a sort of selection. Other scopes are out.
Bottom (+/-) prices in the Netherlands are (no eyepiece):
Leica = 1280
Swaro= 1800
Nikon= 960

As regards the reviews I have found on the web, including a review in birdforum, I was surprised that most reviewers put the Fieldscope more or less in the same league as the Leica and the Swaro. Between the latter two, Leica wins with a noselength. I have seen no negative user-comments to speak of for the Leica and Swarovski in newsgroups and forums. I have seen a few for the Nikon, but one or two may also have been addressed to the Fieldscope 78.

I use the equipment for wildlife photography, usually in low light conditions, and over a distance. 75 to 150 meters is in my case closeby, but it happens. 1000+ also happens, more than I care.
I wonder how reliable the reviews are for my case. I assume that most of the tests refer to bird photography with a shorter range than 75 meters. One of the users said to believe that the Nikon performs well under 200 meters, but gets soft at a longer range.

That worries me a bit because I like Nikon, and I like the price.

I would accept that the Nikon is almost as good as the others. But it is different when the others are quite a bit better than Nikon.
There is no shop here where I can compare the scopes in circumstances that are typical for my use. So I need your much appreciated views. Please.

Regards
Willem

Why have you ruled out the Zeiss Diascope 85 FL? If you do a lot in low light, the Zeiss would allow you to use faster shutter speeds since it does let through more light to the CCD than the three you mention.

Yes, the Nikon is optically just as good as the other two. However, for digiscoping its zoom is not as good as Swaro, Leica or Zeiss, since to avoid vignetting you have to zoom the camera to higher magnification and the zoom itself starts off at 25x. If you use the 30x wideangle, that should work just fine, though.

Kimmo

Thanks you your reply, Kimmo.
I am in a finnish period, just had a 4-hours meeting with someone from Helsinki yesterday, and met by accident with your beautiful and smart minister of culture! Yes, the one that was Miss Finland in 1990.

kabsetz said:

Why have you ruled out the Zeiss Diascope 85 FL? If you do a lot in low light, the Zeiss would allow you to use faster shutter speeds since it does let through more light to the CCD than the three you mention.
Yes, the Nikon is optically just as good as the other two. However, for digiscoping its zoom is not as good as Swaro, Leica or Zeiss, since to avoid vignetting you have to zoom the camera to higher magnification and the zoom itself starts off at 25x. If you use the 30x wideangle, that should work just fine, though.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

I did rule out the Zeiss because in several reviews the Zeiss ended (far) behind the other big-three in optical qualities. Also, in September someone with a Zeiss let me observe an elk high on the mountain in Yellowstone. I was impressed, but not convinced. Third reason is that one has to narrow down selections, in order not to become completely crazy....

I was considering to buy the new eyepieces, the Wide DS series. Have you seen those already? Zoom I would not use for scoping.

Willem

Willem,

the fact that Kimmo is a staunch enthusiast of the Zeiss is as good a recommendation as you'll ever need (review a couple of years old, but still valid).
http://www.alula.fi/gb/telescope1-2002.htm

I would also add that Andy Bright (one of the forum's foremost digiscoping experts) has used a Zeiss to great effect.
http://www.digiscoped.com/DigiscopingInfo.html

Believe me, they lack for nothing in real terms compared with Leica and Swarowski - nothing - and you're doing yourself a great disservice by not considering the option.

Just browse this forum for all the proof you need: I did, and bought a Zeiss 65 as a result.

I've been smiling ever since...



Oh - and the Zeiss zoom is a fine digiscoping eyepiece.

Count me as another happy Zeiss user (65mm). Zeiss gives up nothing to Swaro, Leica, or Nikon, and frequently good deals can be found on demos and refurbs.

Bill

Thanks, guys, for the warm Zeiss support. I will, I promise, look again at Zeiss.
Hope that Nikon, Swaro or Leica users and aficionados will share their views.

Willem

Hi Willem,

it would just be a shame if you missed out on what might be the perfect scope for you.

You might still decide against Zeiss, but you owe it to yourself to consider the option.

As Bill suggests, you can often source Zeiss scopes at a lower price than the equivalents by other manufacturers.

The versatility of the zoom with its wide FOV and the wonderfully bright image from these scopes makes them worthy of serious consideration.

Some more reading:
http://betterviewdesired.com/bigscopes/index.html
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/zeiss_diascope.html

Best of luck in your quest.

I would like to politely correct Keith and point out that I'm not a "staunch Zeiss enthusiast" nor, for that matter, a staunch enthusiast of any brand - just good quality optics.

The Zeiss Diascope is a fine scope, and so are the others mentioned here.

None of us can say which one would be the best one to get, because that depends on the luck of the draw - do you get a cherry, a plum, an apple or a lemon, and which happens to be which brand and model in the shop you are lucky enough or unfortunate enough to do business with.

What I can say is that assuming specimen which are as good as they get for each brand and design, the Zeiss and the Nikon are right up there. Since real life does not comply with this assumption, the best bet is to go shopping with an open mind and sharp eyes, and to trust what you see yourself.

For digiscoping, the Wide DS 24/30x is probably the best bet. I have only seen it at the fair, but from experience with other Nikon wides I know it is very good indeed. Leica and Swarovski 30/32x wides do have better edge resolution, however.

Kimmo

My apologies, Kimmo - you're quite right to point out that you're simply a fan of quality wherever you find it...

Willem,
I'm not an expert on optics but I noticed when I started digiscoping birds that the best photos I were seeing on the web were taken through Swarovski scopes. I started with Bushnell, went to a Kowa (couldn't afford a Swarovski I thought) and 1 year later went to a Swarovski AT80HD. I was very impressed although I used the 30x eyepiece in preference to the zoom that most people were using. I'm now using the Swarovski ATS80HD and I mostly use the zoom. It's a wonderful piece of glass. There are some photos in gallery taken over long distances up to 200 metres using the 60x end of the zoom and I was very impressed (Peregrine on cliffside this week,Nankeen Night Heron last week,Peregrine 3 wks ago). My impression is that the new zoom is noticeably better than the old zoom, particularly at the long end. I have just received the 77x eyepiece and I will try that out next week on the lagoon that I see from my balcony which is 900 metres away. Hope this helps, Neil

willemw said:

First an apology.
I am almost certain that this question is not new. I welcome the info where to find the appropriate thread on birdforum.

I “digiscope” with a Nikon combi: Coolpix 4500 and scope 80A (Rai II or Sky & Earth). I have all the Nikon adapters and attachments. It’s fun, but I want a better quality 80-scope.
I did quite some reseach, and have filtered it down to Leica APO 77, Swarovski 80HD and Fieldscope ED 82. I am happy that I made a sort of selection. Other scopes are out.
Bottom (+/-) prices in the Netherlands are (no eyepiece):
Leica = 1280
Swaro= 1800
Nikon= 960

As regards the reviews I have found on the web, including a review in birdforum, I was surprised that most reviewers put the Fieldscope more or less in the same league as the Leica and the Swaro. Between the latter two, Leica wins with a noselength. I have seen no negative user-comments to speak of for the Leica and Swarovski in newsgroups and forums. I have seen a few for the Nikon, but one or two may also have been addressed to the Fieldscope 78.

I use the equipment for wildlife photography, usually in low light conditions, and over a distance. 75 to 150 meters is in my case closeby, but it happens. 1000+ also happens, more than I care.
I wonder how reliable the reviews are for my case. I assume that most of the tests refer to bird photography with a shorter range than 75 meters. One of the users said to believe that the Nikon performs well under 200 meters, but gets soft at a longer range.

That worries me a bit because I like Nikon, and I like the price.

I would accept that the Nikon is almost as good as the others. But it is different when the others are quite a bit better than Nikon.
There is no shop here where I can compare the scopes in circumstances that are typical for my use. So I need your much appreciated views. Please.

Regards
Willem

Click to expand...

I appreciate all the comments.
Neil, I might already have bought the Swarovski were it not that I saw purely by chance a very positive story about the Nikon. Then I started to compare various scopes. I was looking for a way to escape from 1800-2000 euro ( price here in Holland without eyepiece!).
I will wait a few hours and days more for more comments.

Thanks again everybody for sharing their thoughts about this (luxury) problem.

Willem

willemw said:

I appreciate all the comments.
Neil, I might already have bought the Swarovski were it not that I saw purely by chance a very positive story about the Nikon. Then I started to compare various scopes. I was looking for a way to escape from 1800-2000 euro ( price here in Holland without eyepiece!).
I will wait a few hours and days more for more comments.

Thanks again everybody for sharing their thoughts about this (luxury) problem.

Willem

Click to expand...

I bought a Nikon ED78 scope last march, it was as much as I could afford. But I di view all the major scopes before I decided. The one I would have chosen was the Nikon to me it gave the clearest and brightest image. When I took the plunge and bought the ED 78 I was not diappointed, I get an image which I find impossible to distinguish from an ED 82, and for a lot less money. I have tried comparing my scope to others of the swarovsky, Leica and Zeiss brands since then whenever the opportunity has arisen and again I have not found any scope that I find gives me a better view than the Nikon. Wider image yes, but I use a zoom eyepiece.

Thanks, Bill.

The thread is developing into a very helpful set of arguments, experiences and views. I hope to receive a few more comments and suggestions, and then it is D-time. You imagine how lost a consumer must have felt in the old days, without the Internet. Had to rely entirely on the retailer's input. I value the advise of a professional salesman, but I am happy that it is possible these days to compare what he's got to say with the opinions of others.

Have a nice weekend!

Willem

willemw said:

Thanks, Bill.

The thread is developing into a very helpful set of arguments, experiences and views. I hope to receive a few more comments and suggestions, and then it is D-time. You imagine how lost a consumer must have felt in the old days, without the Internet. Had to rely entirely on the retailer's input. I value the advise of a professional salesman, but I am happy that it is possible these days to compare what he's got to say with the opinions of others.

Have a nice weekend!

Willem

Click to expand...

When I got my scope I went round various places and always mentioned the ED78 and all were a little bit negative about it, I got the impression that since they didn't sell it they were not interested in telling anyone about it. That was until one person when I was leaving said to me that despite what he had been saying that the ED 78 was a fine scope, it was liek him saying that company policy would not let him say very much about it, but that he personally rated it quite highly.

willemw said:

I use the equipment for wildlife photography, usually in low light conditions, and over a distance. 75 to 150 meters is in my case closeby, but it happens. 1000+ also happens, more than I care.
I wonder how reliable the reviews are for my case. I assume that most of the tests refer to bird photography with a shorter range than 75 meters. One of the users said to believe that the Nikon performs well under 200 meters, but gets soft at a longer range.

That worries me a bit because I like Nikon, and I like the price.

Click to expand...

Willem,
Sorry if I sound a bit negative, but - to be honest - I wouldn't expect any scope to perform very well at longer distances than 75 meters. Sure you can take pictures and even recognize species at 1000+ meters but I think this exceeds the power of any digiscope. The soft images at longer distances are usually the result of atmospheric disturbances, which cannot be overcome with any scope.

What kind of wildlife do you photograph, and do you use a (D)SLR-system already? For many birdwatchers the possibility to take pictures is a nice add-on to their hobby, but for more serious nature photographers digiscoping may easily be too slow, limited and of low quality. Yes, there are some real artists among digiscopers, but even they often say that their best images are taken at very short distances (10 - 30m).

I agree with most others that your best choice is about personal preferences, and in that case you probably shouldn't make your shortlist too short. And as some with knowledge (eg. Kimmo, Chris Garvey) have said, individual variation may be high enough to determine the outcome of an optics test.

FWIW I can list my personal favourites:

1. Swarovski ATS80HD (zoom is fine & versatile, but 30xSW is marvellous)
2. Leica APO77 (32xWA is the best eyepiece I know, a great 20xWA with good eye-relief, not the greatest zoom)
3. Zeiss 85FL (maybe the best zoom, slightly short eye-relief, but gives a very wide view, bright, sharp image)
4. Nikon 82ED (zoom beautifully sharp, contrasty, natural colours, smallish ER, relatively narrow field-of-view)
5. Kowa TSN823M (optically excellent, nice selection of new digiscoping eyepieces, slightly cheaper build quality)

The Leica APO and the Zeiss FL are best corrected against chromatic aberration ("true" apochromats). In digiscoping a good eye-relief is very important/useful. Try different focusing systems: a) single small b) fine+coarse focusing rings separately c) a large helical ring. Fast vs. slow focusing, right vs. left-handed (=clockwise/CCwise). Etc. personal...

Best of luck with your purchase,

Ilkka

I think Illka puts it all very clearly. One thing that puzzles me is inline with what has been said about distances and image quality surely in that situation it calls for a good camera/telephoto lens setup.
Robert

Ikka

(Quite a strong finnish representation in this thread, makes my week a finnish week - see my earlier reply to Kimmo)

and Robert,

Ikka, you don't sound negative, at least not in my perception: I raised the question of lange range effectiveness in an earlier post in this thread.

I am happy you mention the - to a certain extent - inability of digiscoping to maintain freshness, contrast and sharpness over a long range.
That is true, and that is precisely why I am a bit cautious in a) the pennies b) the expectations.

The wildlife I am interested in (wolves, bears, coyotes, elk etc) is best seen early in the morning, or late in the afternoon. The poor light early in the morning is more or less balanced against the lack of heat shimmering, dust etc. Depends on the time of the year.

It is my intention indeed to improve the current setup for digiscoping (doing away with the Nikon Sky & Earth 80, a bit too light) as well as to invest in a decent digital SLR + decent zoom. I had not mentioned it mainly to keep the thread "clean", but now you mention......

Thanks for the comments.

Willem

As it seems that all was said that had to be said about this issue, I thank everybody for his/her contribution. I let you know the decision.

Thanks again!

Willem

Willem
It is worth considering the after sales service these companies offer. A friend of mine recently dropped his Swaro and broke the tripod foot off from the inside of the scope, he returned it to the store 2 weeks later returned from swaro total charge from Swaro £0 the store charged £10 handling fee thou plus £15 p&p this seems to be the sort ofcexcellent service offered by Swaro and looking at other threads on this forum not always offered by other manufacturers
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=21292
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=22040
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=20349
try these links

Simon

Thanks, Simon, for reminding to the aftersales aspect. Could make all the difference, indeed. From the links I get that, generally speaking, Swarovski, Leica and Zeiss deliver outstanding products, and excellent service.
My retailer is satisfied by what Nikon delivers in this respect (Sports Optics, so binocular department). He is a Swarovski fan as there are few. So, if I dare to come up with a proposal for another scope, I might be in trouble (and so is he).

Willem