Here are the new modular Swarovski scopes (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

From a discussion on Cloudynights someone mentioned something that is on my wish list: - a binoviewer that works on birding scopes! With this X system, Swarovski could also produce a binoviewer module...:king:

A binoviewer would be great, especially for seawatching and so on. I talked to Zeiss about the feasibility of a binoviewer some years ago, and it now seems possible to produce one that doesn't automatically mean you're stuck with a physically large and unwieldy scope. You can simply switch modules.

Hermann

 

[edwincjones]

A binoviewer would be great, especially for seawatching and so on. I talked to Zeiss about the feasibility of a binoviewer some years ago, and it now seems possible to produce one that doesn't automatically mean you're stuck with a physically large and unwieldy scope. You can simply switch modules.

Hermann

TeleVue created the Bizarro-an 85mm scope with binoviewer,
but it did not go over well with the astronomy crowd a few years ago.

I think that the problem was light division/reduction with the two eps.

edj

 

[fugl]

Will consider, if she's free from Aberrations.

For me it would definitely depend on the "aberration" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

 

[username]

Wife swapping aside for one moment.......and for those interested...Martin Garner has just posted some photo and video results from the new ATX using the TLS APO adapter....and i have to say the results look pretty impressive...especially Dale Forbes videos...B

http://birdingfrontiers.com/2012/07/23/swarovski-atx-and-digiscoping/


http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[dalat]

From this overview here I understand that this new TLS APO adapter can also be used on the current ATM/STM scopes with DSLR cameras, which sounds very interesting.

The video (on this page) explaining how to use this thing on the new ATX scope shows that the TLS goes quite far over the eyepiece. If it is similarly on the old/current eyepiece I would think that the adapter covers the zoom ring entirely. So I wonder if it is possible to use the zoom on the eyepiece in this configuration, or if you would have to choose the mag. before putting the adapter in place?

 

[lewis20126]

Well, I'm 64 and I carry around a 9lb astronomical refractor for birding. My wife carries the "light" scope in our household, a smaller astro refractor that weighs 5lbs. I'm thinking of the 95mm Swarovski as a featherweight alternative for long hikes. ;-)

Henry,

Good stuff - these namby pamby 60mm types ought to take a leaf out of your book. I'm looking for a heavier scope as an alternative to the gym so may go "astronomical". Which by coincidence brings us back to the price of the Swaro 95mm...

cheers, alan

 

[dipped]

At least my pre-emptive thread proved to be more than a rumour.

I can't understand why Henry Link and Kimmo Absetz didn't get an invite to the Hungary launch. They would at least know how to test these things properly and have some critical comments to make. So far all we've heard from people actually there is all positive.

I feel the weight of these will put a lot of people off even if they are Swarovski scopes.

I wonder if there will be a glut of used ATM/ATS scopes as people upgrade and what will happen to the price of the current range.

 

[Neil]

Henry,

Good stuff - these namby pamby 60mm types ought to take a leaf out of your book. I'm looking for a heavier scope as an alternative to the gym so may go "astronomical". Which by coincidence brings us back to the price of the Swaro 95mm...

cheers, alan

Alan,
Me too. My usual kit weighs about 16 kgs ( probably why I have a back problem) and I'm always looking for more resolution for distance. Here at Mai Po Nature Reserve we are normally looking at from 50 - 600 meters in less than ideal light. Brighter would be nice too.
Neil

 

[ClayTaylorTX]

From this overview here I understand that this new TLS APO adapter can also be used on the current ATM/STM scopes with DSLR cameras, which sounds very interesting.

The video (on this page) explaining how to use this thing on the new ATX scope shows that the TLS goes quite far over the eyepiece. If it is similarly on the old/current eyepiece I would think that the adapter covers the zoom ring entirely. So I wonder if it is possible to use the zoom on the eyepiece in this configuration, or if you would have to choose the mag. before putting the adapter in place?

The sleeve will be called the DRSM and it comes with a second ring that helps fix it in place so that twisting the camera does not rotate the zoom of the eyepiece. Hmmm...that one has to be seen to be appreciated, as describing it is tough.

Anyway, the system allows me to mount the DRSM on the barrel of either the 20-60xS or 25-50xW eyepiece, and the TLS APO then slides down and locks in place on the DRSM. If I want to zoom the eyepiece, I pull back the TLS APO+DRSM just a bit (to disengage it from the aforementioned ring), rotate the camera (plus TLS APO+DRSM assembly) in my hands to change the zoom setting on the eyepiece, push the combination back onto the locking pin, then loosen the TLS APO on the DRSM to rotate it back to my shooting level (either Landscape or Portrait) and re-tighten.

Yup, it sounds horribly complicated, but in reality it works quickly and smoothly.

The other nice thing is you can keep the eyecup on the eyepiece, and even have it fully extended when the TLS APO is mounted on the eyepiece.

Clay

 

[ClayTaylorTX]

A binoviewer would be great, especially for seawatching and so on. I talked to Zeiss about the feasibility of a binoviewer some years ago, and it now seems possible to produce one that doesn't automatically mean you're stuck with a physically large and unwieldy scope. You can simply switch modules.

Hermann

All - Back when the modular scope was first mentioned to me, I raised that very topic - a binocular-viewer that could take matched astro eyepieces. I suggested a few other variants, too.

After a few years of developing the basic scope, they looked at projected cost of development for the less-traditional accessories, figured against the number that could reasonably be expected to be sold, and the price needed to be charged in order to make money. The bino viewer did not make the cut. Bummer.....

 

[ClayTaylorTX]

What seems really new for me is the SLR-photo-adapter. If I got it right from the site mentioned above it takes the image from the eyepiece and not as all the other SLR-adapters direct from the scope's objective. It would be interesting to know the range of focal lenghts and focal ratios with the 3 different bodies. In other words: how fast optical could this setup be at maximum? How good at taking images from moving birds?

Steve

Steve - The scope's viewing system (eyepiece) is permanently built into the ATX / STX Viewing Module, and the TLS APO is simply a Pancake Lens that was designed at the same time as the entire scope and eyepiece, and optimized to bring an apochromatic image to the camera's sensor.

Every combination of scope / eyepiece / camera lens that we have ever used since the first days of Digiscoping (CoolPix 4500, CoolPix 8400, Pentax D-SLR with 40mm Pancake Lens, Panasonic ILEV with 20mm Pancake Lens, etc., etc.) was a combination of a spotting scope and a camera lens that were designed to work independant of each other. None of these combos were even remotely apochromatic at the camera sensor.

The TLS APO is a 30mm lens that has one job - to take the image from the scope eyepiece and get it to the camera sensor with as little loss as possible. It has one focus setting (about 30 feet if you point it at the real world and take a picture), one f/stop (I do not know what that one is, and Austria is not saying), and is permanently mounted in the very substantial housing. You can carry a 1D MkIV and TLS APO around on the end of the ATX scope and have the same amount of stability as if it were on a 600mm f/4 lens.

According to Austria, the ultimate image quality (both viewing and imaging) is achieved with the 85mm objective package. The 95mm objective with the TLS APO will give more light and better resolution, but the pixel-peepers will see that the 85 shows less blemishes.

 

[ClayTaylorTX]

my SW newsletter of today described these as a new "telescope"

I am not sure of the sematics, but telescope to me means night sky,
and these seem to be bigger spotting scopes
although 95mm is a decent sized refractor

edj

Here in the US, we call them "spotting scopes". In Austria, they call them "telescopes". I honestly do not know what they commonly call them in the UK, but I suspect "spotting".

in any case, po-tay-to / po-tah-to, as long as we all know what is being referred to....

 

[dalat]

If I want to zoom the eyepiece, I pull back the TLS APO+DRSM just a bit (to disengage it from the aforementioned ring), rotate the camera (plus TLS APO+DRSM assembly) in my hands to change the zoom setting on the eyepiece, push the combination back onto the locking pin, then loosen the TLS APO on the DRSM to rotate it back to my shooting level (either Landscape or Portrait) and re-tighten.

Yup, it sounds horribly complicated, but in reality it works quickly and smoothly.

Thanks a lot for this explanation. Yes indeed, sounds complicated, certainly has to be tried before ordering one of those. But good to hear that in principle it is possible.

 

[username]

At least my pre-emptive thread proved to be more than a rumour.

I can't understand why Henry Link and Kimmo Absetz didn't get an invite to the Hungary launch. They would at least know how to test these things properly and have some critical comments to make. So far all we've heard from people actually there is all positive.

I feel the weight of these will put a lot of people off even if they are Swarovski scopes.

I wonder if there will be a glut of used ATM/ATS scopes as people upgrade and what will happen to the price of the current range.

I have a deep distrust of many reviews and reviewers...[as i'm sure other folks have]....for fairly obvious reasons....

Naturally any company promoting a new optic that they've spent a lot of time and money on developing will want to emphasize the 'positives' and you cannot blame them for that...[business is business]...etc.

Only after the the fanfare of launch trumpets have died down and people get a chance to get to grips with these scopes will we know if Swarovski have 'done it again' and come up with a marvelous piece of kit.

I love Swaro scopes but only time will tell if they've got the marketing right regards the weight of the product...[and price]...B

Yes there are obviously folk who will not be put off by the 'weight'...but some of the guys i see running around twitching in the UK these days look as tho they can hardly carry a packed lunch of ham sandwiches more than 5 yards....

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[John Cantelo]

Although I continue to have some doubts about the logic behind this system, it must be conceded that optically they seem superb. Jokes about selling your partner or a kidney to afford one may be amusing, but they do underscore a very real concern that such optimum instruments are increasingly growing way beyond the reach of all but a handful of birders. Whilst it's fun to drool over such fantasy instruments, what most of us really want is something approaching this quality at a fraction of the cost. A raft of Chinese ED bins already do this for bins and, according to some, a handful of 'scopes may be getting there too.

The other point made was regarding the practicality of taking the behemoth that is the 95mm scope on holiday. 42mm bins - 800-900gm, mega-scope 2.2 kg, camera and lenses 2kg+ all stored in a carry on bag itself often 2+kg. With cabin baggage allowance on some package tours a paltry 5kg this could be a real problem even with the smallest scope in the range (1.6 kg). Even if your allowance is 10kg with field guides etc. this can still be rather tight which is why I travel with c600gm 8x32 and c500gm Nikon 50mm scope. Not optically perfect, but a lot more practical for travelling,

 

[kabsetz]

Here's for those of you who enjoy hair-splitting (like me). Perhaps Clay can chime in, and Henry could verify my calculations.

Anyway, since I'm a keen supporter of high-aperture high-magnification scopes, my interest obviously is mostly in the 95mm ATX, and like Henry, I was slightly disappointed in the upper magnification limit of 70x. However, elementary arithmetics in my head told me that a prism-eyepiece combo that gives 25-60x on two scopes cannot give exactly 30-70x on another, unless the zoom range is somehow artificially limited on the latter. So I went over the data sheet for the ATX/STX range with a fine comb to try to guess whether the 95 would actually be a 29-70 or a 30-72 or something else. The most precise figures to go by are the field-of-view specs, which are given to the accuracy of two decimal points (e.g.1.98). These figures for the 3 different objective configurations are consistent with one another, and assuming that the magnification range is accurately given for the 65mm and the 85mm (which are in Swarovski's thinking the primary options for the scope), then a little bit of gymnastics with a pocket calculator derives a magnification range of 29.9-71.6x for the 95. It is quite understandable for Swarovski to round their figures to the nearest feasible even number, and 30-70 certainly looks much neater in print than 29-71 or 30-72.

It is a great comfort to know that if I upgrade from my 25-75x Nikon to the big Swaro, the maximum magnification will only drop to 72x instead of 70x.

Still waiting to see the beast...

Kimmo

 

[kabsetz]

Another comment concerning the feasibility of a system that elevates prices to a new level.

I would not be surprised at all if it turned out that this range, despite its high price, were to be a commercial success. At least here in Finland, the SV range has sold really well, and that is because quite a number of birders are willing to invest in optics that they really perceive as being the best and giving them views that are better than what they feel they can get with some other piece of gear. And with binoculars, the differences in practice are not that great. The potential benefit from a 95mm objective with a 70x (or 72x) magnification and wide-field views over the current best competition of one 88mm/60x, one 85mm/75x and one 82mm/75x is quite substantial, and once it is available and if, indeed, it does prove markedly superior to my current scope, I will acquire one as soon as I can save up the money. Also, for their size, specifications, and all-round armoring, these scopes are not even that heavy. the 95 weighs about the same as the overweight 82mm Leica Apo-televid and less than the very rare Nikon EDG 85. Certainly nothing that a good carbon-fibre tripod and a normal good-quality video head could not handle.

Kimmo

 

[lewis20126]

With cabin baggage allowance on some package tours a paltry 5kg

John, Why not "wear the scope" around your neck? I've done this with bins, cameras and scopes on Ryanair and others in the past. Once you get your boarding pass they go back in the bag....

cheers, alan

 

[henry link]

It is a great comfort to know that if I upgrade from my 25-75x Nikon to the big Swaro, the maximum magnification will only drop to 72x instead of 70x.

Good find, Kimmo. It certainly wouldn't make sense for the zoom ratio to change from 2.4x to 2.33x when the 95mm objective is used.

My conjectures lately have concentrated on focal lengths and focal ratios. We know the 65mm and 85mm have the same effective focal length and the 95mm is (approximately) 20% longer. If 462mm (focal length of the the current scopes) is arbitrarily assigned to the 65 and 85, that would make the 95 about 554mm. The focal ratios would be f/7.1 for the 65, f/5.44 for the 85 and f/5.83 for the 95. However, the specs for physical tube lengths don't match those differences in optical focal lengths, so the effective optical focal lengths must be established by tweaking the objective designs, probably mainly by varying the power of the focusing elements. That might explain Clay Taylor's comment that "According to Austria, the ultimate image quality (both viewing and imaging) is achieved with the 85mm objective". My conjecture is that, for the lowest aberrations, the field flattener/eyepiece design is matched best to the 85mm objective design, with the match slightly compromised with the other two. Of course, in the real world sample variations among production units will likely overwhelm that kind of design precision.

 

[O.Reville1989]

I think Steve Dudley has nailed it - a small OG 'scope when visiting an area which generally experiences good, bright light is perfectly adequate most of the time. What with bins, camera and lenses taking your optics with you using your cabin luggage allowance is tight enough already and who's trust their optical gear to the hold? I take a 50mm 'scope with me to Spain as I try to avoid hold luggage altogether.

These are undoubtedly brilliant 'scopes and the modular system is very clever indeed, but I can't help thinking that the 95mm instrument is a step too far (too big, too heavy, too expensive). A lightweight high quality 'scope in the 50-60mm OG range would have been preferable,

Agreed John. Packing for Spain in April was an absolute nightmare, especially with Ryanairs 15kg. Tripod alone was 2kg, ended up taking the head off and putting in hand luggage.

Really glad I didn't have anything bigger than a 65mm scope at the time, especially with having to pack bins and camera as you say.

No doubt the 95mm scope will be excellent, but it does come across as a bit of "muscle flexing" from Swarovski, is there really the need for it?

A rival to the Nikon ED50 would have been very welcome and I think would have been received well.