New ATC/ STC 17-40x56 Telescope (6 Viewers)

[BogBean]

Well then , you have the option of quoting but it appeared to be directed at Hermann.

I did quote it / reply to it. But ok, at least give me some credit for the ability to time travel, if my post 7.41pm GMT was directed at Hermann's post 8.11pm GMT. ?

If people want to collect binoculars and scopes that's up to them, obviously. But I'm going to call it out if it is being justified as essential in order to be a birder, or to become a better birder.

 

[William Lewis]

If people want to collect binoculars and scopes that's up to them, obviously. But I'm going to call it out if it is being justified as essential in order to be a birder, or to become a better birder.

Some people need is another person's want, I'd live and let live, what optics are you using at the moment out of curiosity?

 

[BogBean]

Some people need is another person's want, I'd live and let live, what optics are you using at the moment out of curiosity?

I know. It's just big company marketing seems to be trying to steal the soul of our hobby!
You need this for a. This for b, another slightly different one in case you ever find yourself in c.

Birding is, and should be chaos! You should be finding yourself completely unprepared all the time. The birds aren't playing to our rules, or the marketing rules either.
Remember that next time you have a massive scope and tripod looking at distant waders, and a birder runs past yelling there is an Eyebrowed Thrush a mile away in the middle of a dark forest!! (Your car is a mile away in the wrong direction )

I have a pair of 8x32, and an 85mm scope.

 

[gastonbe]

I know. It's just big company marketing seems to be trying to steal the soul of our hobby!
You need this for a. This for b, another slightly different one in case you ever find yourself in c.

Birding is, and should be chaos! You should be finding yourself completely unprepared all the time. The birds aren't playing to our rules, or the marketing rules either.
Remember that next time you have a massive scope and tripod looking at distant waders, and a birder runs past yelling there is an Eyebrowed Thrush a mile away in the middle of a dark forest!! (Your car is a mile away in the wrong direction )

I have a pair of 8x32, and an 85mm scope.

Haha I soo agree with this. Who needs perfection in every possible situation? Who cares you miss that one bird in that one scenario? Are you really gonna spend another 4k on a second scope for those edge cases...

Having said that, no judgment. I can see myself buying a second binocular. But it would be more want than need

 

[BogBean]

Haha I soo agree with this. Who needs perfection in every possible situation? Who cares you miss that one bird in that one scenario? Are you really gonna spend another 4k on a second scope for those edge cases...

Having said that, no judgment. I can see myself buying a second binocular. But it would be more want than need

Well, you'll have me to answer to! Joking

 

[ReinierB]

I have a pair of 8x32, and an 85mm scope.

Sounds quite allround...

 

[gastonbe]

I've had the good fortune to use an ATC 56 for a few weeks now, and my observations are a little different. I use it it on the Gitzo GT1545T Traveller - the plate it comes with is fairly small. When scanning on a flat railing or wall, without the tripod, I've been pleasantly surprised at how rock steady it is, scanning at 17x is great, and going up to 25x for scanning has been fine. It's not something I plan to do regularly, but as the scope is in my camera bag anyway, I can if required. It's a great combination with the Gitzo, it's the same weight as my camera and lens I carry over my shoulder all day long.
It's certainly heavier and chunkier than the other <60mm alternatives but to put it bluntly, they are not want you want to be using to use on a regular basis due to the quality of the eyepiece - I was directly comparing it with the Kowa this morning, which has such a tiny, narrow eyepiece that's pretty uncomfortable for long scans - and this is where I see the biggest difference, this might well be aimed at the travelling birder, whereas the ATC for me is designed for everyday use. The ATC eyepiece however is big, wide and chunky, like a big boys scope, no big difference to using the 65 or 85 (I've had both for many years), it's a very comfortable mismatch with the objective. It doesn't feel like you're using a tiny scope when scanning, and scanning through shorebirds for an hour is no discomfort - scanning at x17 is also much more pleasant than x25, as a starting point. At x40 I found it razor sharp, and though ATX65/85 are excellent at x60, I so very, very rarely went beyond x40 anyway.

I thought it would be a scope I would use for travelling or hiking. However, during these weeks I've come to realise it's absolutely adequate for my everyday birding - though I don't go to gull roosts nor do long-distance seawatching, or anything as unsavoury as that anymore!
Quality vs size/weight comparison will mean I am most likely to use the ATC 56 the vast majority of the time now - it'll be interesting to see if I do decide to use my ATX65 on any particular occasion actually as the more I think about it, the more I doubt I will.

James

Sounds like it is what I was hoping it would be. Does it stay attached to the Gitzo well? I.e. did you tether it to the tripod when transporting or anything like that.

I just ordered my Gitzo GT1545T Traveller (with ballhead) myself! And the Swaro ATC should be in the shop at the end of next week (Finally!) so I hope to share my thoughs in a few weeks as well.

 

[Hermann]

I use it it on the Gitzo GT1545T Traveller - the plate it comes with is fairly small. When scanning on a flat railing or wall, without the tripod, I've been pleasantly surprised at how rock steady it is, scanning at 17x is great, and going up to 25x for scanning has been fine. It's not something I plan to do regularly, but as the scope is in my camera bag anyway, I can if required.

Yep. As long as there's a wall or railing or whatever you can get away without a tripod or monopod, at least for a quick look. What I don't like is the Swarovski marketing that seems to imply you can use the ATC without any support. That's plain nonsense. The Gitzo GT1545 is IMO the best lightweight tripod on the market, and an excellent match for the ATC (or most scopes up to ~1,5 kg).

It's certainly heavier and chunkier than the other <60mm alternatives but to put it bluntly, they are not want you want to be using to use on a regular basis due to the quality of the eyepiece - I was directly comparing it with the Kowa this morning, which has such a tiny, narrow eyepiece that's pretty uncomfortable for long scans - and this is where I see the biggest difference, this might well be aimed at the travelling birder, whereas the ATC for me is designed for everyday use.

Agreed on the Kowa. I still stick to the Nikon ED50 at present, but I don't use it with the zoom eyepieces (too narrow for general use, not really suitable if you use glasses). I use the WA or DS eyepieces. Less convenient than a zoom, sure. But very, very comfortable for long scans.

And I think you're right - the ATC isn't designed as scope for travelling or long hikes, it's designed for everyday use. That is a very astute observation. Thank you.

The ATC eyepiece however is big, wide and chunky, like a big boys scope, no big difference to using the 65 or 85 (I've had both for many years), it's a very comfortable mismatch with the objective. It doesn't feel like you're using a tiny scope when scanning, and scanning through shorebirds for an hour is no discomfort - scanning at x17 is also much more pleasant than x25, as a starting point. At x40 I found it razor sharp, and though ATX65/85 are excellent at x60, I so very, very rarely went beyond x40 anyway.

And if you really need more than 40x, you can easily use a Zeiss 3x12 as a booster for a quick ID.

Quality vs size/weight comparison will mean I am most likely to use the ATC 56 the vast majority of the time now - it'll be interesting to see if I do decide to use my ATX65 on any particular occasion actually as the more I think about it, the more I doubt I will.

Once again interesting observations. Maybe I'll have to rethink my scope line-up after all those years. At present I use an EDIIIA (over 20 years old) most of the time, an ED82 at estuaries and gull roosts (I still do gull roosts ... ) and an ED50 for hiking in the mountains and so on.

Thanks again for your helpful post.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Birding is, and should be chaos! You should be finding yourself completely unprepared all the time. The birds aren't playing to our rules, or the marketing rules either.
Remember that next time you have a massive scope and tripod looking at distant waders, and a birder runs past yelling there is an Eyebrowed Thrush a mile away in the middle of a dark forest!! (Your car is a mile away in the wrong direction )

If it were only a mile away, I'd grab the scope+tripod and run the mile. I'm not that decrepit yet ... Eyebrowed is a bird I still need.

But you're right, you can never be prepared for everything. And carrying five binoculars and three scopes on each and every trip won't help.

Hermann

 

[MiddleRiver]

Yep. As long as there's a wall or railing or whatever you can get away without a tripod or monopod, at least for a quick look. What I don't like is the Swarovski marketing that seems to imply you can use the ATC without any support. That's plain nonsense. The Gitzo GT1545 is IMO the best lightweight tripod on the market, and an excellent match for the ATC (or most scopes up to ~1,5 kg).

Agreed on the Kowa. I still stick to the Nikon ED50 at present, but I don't use it with the zoom eyepieces (too narrow for general use, not really suitable if you use glasses). I use the WA or DS eyepieces. Less convenient than a zoom, sure. But very, very comfortable for long scans.

And I think you're right - the ATC isn't designed as scope for travelling or long hikes, it's designed for everyday use. That is a very astute observation. Thank you.

And if you really need more than 40x, you can easily use a Zeiss 3x12 as a booster for a quick ID.

Once again interesting observations. Maybe I'll have to rethink my scope line-up after all those years. At present I use an EDIIIA (over 20 years old) most of the time, an ED82 at estuaries and gull roosts (I still do gull roosts ... ) and an ED50 for hiking in the mountains and so on.

Thanks again for your helpful post.

Hermann

I was on the fence between the ATC and the 553. I now own the Kowa and understand it a little more. While the ER differences made the ATC attractive, I agree with the video review (S&S Archery) which although addressing the scopes for hunting purposes, I find applicable since I'm often 'hunting' for birds (not literally of course). If you wanted to spend a morning or even an hour scanning with a scope (and within short jaunt from vehicle), the 553 would not be the best choice. Smaller FOV and smaller 'eye box' would be tedious. But for my intended purpose which is where I'm looking at/for birds with 8x or 10x and then seeing something too distant or not familiar finding I want to take a look for positive ID, the 553 is superb. IQ is excellent throughout the zoom range and it stuffs easily into daypack. The form factor also means I can use a lighter travel tripod, and thus the net result is that I'm more likely to want to hike with the whole setup (weight was also a factor vs. the ATC, even if not by much). 40x45x is not a big deal, tho I do appreciate the little extra umphh.

As to hand-holding, I have in fact done that with the 553, just when I wanted to confirm some distant waterfowl, but yes, it's hard wout some sort of support. That said, the low 15x of the Kowa does lend itself to being used on fenceposts, trees, my knee, etc. I wear specs and at lower mags keep them on, but I've found it's better to flip glasses up and pull the eyecup out when zooming in.

Of course I've gone back and looked at the ATC lusting for the FOV and ER, but each time I contemplate higher weight, weird tripod foot, barrel focusing, and the upcharge of $700 in US, I conclude my original choice was the right one

 

[Hermann]

If you wanted to spend a morning or even an hour scanning with a scope (and within short jaunt from vehicle), the 553 would not be the best choice. Smaller FOV and smaller 'eye box' would be tedious. But for my intended purpose which is where I'm looking at/for birds with 8x or 10x and then seeing something too distant or not familiar finding I want to take a look for positive ID, the 553 is superb. IQ is excellent throughout the zoom range and it stuffs easily into daypack. The form factor also means I can use a lighter travel tripod, and thus the net result is that I'm more likely to want to hike with the whole setup (weight was also a factor vs. the ATC, even if not by much). 40x45x is not a big deal, tho I do appreciate the little extra umphh.

Makes sense. However, if I switch scopes I will only get a scope that works flawlessly with glasses and has a zoom with a large field of view. Otherwise I might as well stick to my Nikons. No complaints about their optics, only their zooms are quite outdated by now, even though they're optically still pretty competitive. But their ER and their AFOV isn't up to scratch anymore. A lighter travel tripod - the smallest and lightest that works for me is the Gitzo 1545T. I need the height.

As to hand-holding, I have in fact done that with the 553, just when I wanted to confirm some distant waterfowl, but yes, it's hard wout some sort of support. That said, the low 15x of the Kowa does lend itself to being used on fenceposts, trees, my knee, etc. I wear specs and at lower mags keep them on, but I've found it's better to flip glasses up and pull the eyecup out when zooming in.

And that's what I don't want to do - flip the glasses up (or take them off) when I use higher magnifications. I find getting used to glasses hard enough, after 40 years with contact lenses. Any scope or my binoculars have to work with them.

Hermann

[Addendum]: Barrel focusing is fine with me. I've been using barrel focusing for almost 30 years now, ever since I got my first Nikon Fieldscope. But people who never used it should really try it before buying a scope with barrel focusing.

 

[tenex]

I replied to post #303 who is being led to believe that to be a birdwatcher he needs 2 scopes and 3 swarovskis...

But I'm going to call it out if it is being justified as essential in order to be a birder, or to become a better birder.

Reiner sounds perfectly capable of figuring things out for himself according to his own taste. You could have framed your own advice in a more modest way, or shared any experience you may(?) have yourself, as others have, but instead you did this. John was quite right: who needs you to interfere or "call out" anything? Unnecessary annoyance and distraction.

 

[BogBean]

Reiner sounds perfectly capable of figuring things out for himself according to his own taste. You could have framed your own advice in a more modest way, or shared any experience you may(?) have yourself, as others have, but instead you did this. John was quite right: who needs you to interfere or "call out" anything? Unnecessary annoyance and distraction.

Mine's just a different opinion. Don't worry about it.

 

[MiddleRiver]

This is often a tough crowd!

But I think your comments have much merit. These optics discussions don’t represent most birders I see or know. Most would think it odd that anyone would own multiple multi-thousand-dollar optics and I suspect most would find the incessant attempt to determine how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin to be quite odd.

Optics are a ‘hobby’ in and of themselves. I often remind myself how little that has to do with birding or observing nature. Yes, good optics contribute to those pursuits, but….

PS don’t ask about why I ‘need’ six binos and am always looking for others, worried I have the wrong ones 😬

 

[mbb]

…
It's certainly heavier and chunkier than the other <60mm alternatives …

I thought it would be a scope I would use for travelling or hiking. However, during these weeks I've come to realise it's absolutely adequate for my everyday birding - though I don't go to gull roosts nor do long-distance seawatching, or anything as unsavoury as that anymore!
Quality vs size/weight comparison will mean I am most likely to use the ATC 56 the vast majority of the time now - it'll be interesting to see if I do decide to use my ATX65 on any particular occasion actually as the more I think about it, the more I doubt I will.

James

Thanks a lot for sharing your hands-on experience in the field!

It appears chunkier and heavier than a Nikon ED50 or a Kowa TSN-501, but is it really (significantly) heavier than e.g. an Opticron MM4 50 or a Kowa TSN-553?

Did you have the occasion to compare it to your ATX65, both in good and bad/low light?
I’m wondering how the ‘jumps’ in low’ light are from 56 to 65 mm, compared to e.g. from 50 to 65, or from 65 to 80. (I know the maths, but hands-on still rules…)

Having an Opticron MM4 50 and an ATX65, I’m wondering if the ATC couldn’t replace them both. (Though the price is very high and the small round foot is really something I question.)
Maybe to be complemented with an 80mm for low-light use (2 scopes) and wondering if low-light viewing would be the only real benefit of the 80mm, or still also viewing comfort.
The opticron is really great for its size and price, giving really good views. The ATX is better, especially in worse light, but it is heavier to carry and I now enjoy being able to put the Opticron on my traveller tripod ín my cycling bag. Which I assume should also be possible with the ATC.

 

[tenex]

Mine's just a different opinion. Don't worry about it.

Me worry? I was just commenting on your sudden appearance as the "worried" one in this conversation, on the mistaken premise that it was somehow about "how to be a better birder". For that matter, I don't see any "big company marketing" trying to convince us that we need specialized optics for various situations either, just struggling to come up with something new and a bit different to purchase since bins/scopes are inconveniently durable.

 

[Thotmosis]

just struggling to come up with something new and a bit different to purchase since bins/scopes are inconveniently durable.

Very true and yesterdays Alpha’s like your Zeiss FL 10x32 still rocks

 

[BogBean]

Me worry? I was just commenting on your sudden appearance as the "worried" one in this conversation, on the mistaken premise that it was somehow about "how to be a better birder". For that matter, I don't see any "big company marketing" trying to convince us that we need specialized optics for various situations either, just struggling to come up with something new and a bit different to purchase since bins/scopes are inconveniently durable.

In reply to "So actually you need two scopes... I thought bird watching was a cheap hobby... not anymore, having 3 Swarovski's already"

I was saying you don't need 2 scopes, or 3 swarovskis.. that won't make you a better birder. 1 pair of binocs, 1 scope, and you are good to go. As indeed I am.

 

[tenex]

I was saying you don't need 2 scopes, or 3 swarovskis.. that won't make you a better birder.

I think we all got that the first time.

1 pair of binocs, 1 scope, and you are good to go. As indeed I am.

Congratulations... so you've come to a 17-page thread "New ATC/STC 17-40x56 Telescope" just to tell people they don't need one.

 

[The BulbMogul]

Only 2 scopes here but like that little new orange one also.. 115MM ATX and 95 ATX but sure fancy this small orange one too..