Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Was it the TLS APO adapter?
-
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.
Swarovski ATX-115: Star-test and Resolution Measurements (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter henry link
- Start date
Was it the TLS APO adapter?
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
He has two chances. No chance and a dogs chance!!!
rpg51
Well-known member
What percentage of consumers (birders and hunters) purchasing a spotting scope actually do the testing described in this thread? My guess, less than 1%. So, for the 99%, maybe they should be judging quality and performance of the scopes they consider based the average example, not the "cherry"?
jan van daalen
Well-known member
That is absolutely correct, but buying top notch equipment for serious money one may only expect to get that from the brand.
Only cherries and no average samples.
Just MHO.
Jan
rpg51
Well-known member
So the way i see it is this - on average, is a 3k to 5k scope going to give noticeably better performance than a $300 scope? I think the answer is yes. If the answer is no, then I am throwing cash in the trash can. I have some personal experience, but obviously it is limited. I have to rely on the information I can gather without setting up my own personal testing laboratory and that means independent recommendations, often found in places like this, regarding comparitive performance of various scopes and binos on the market. My experience in life tells me that you usually, (but not always), get what you pay for. That is part of my thinking as well.
Last edited:
A $300 scope can be optically as good as a $3000 scope, especially if the cheap scope is less adventurous, i.e. longer. But the $300 scope needs ED glass or to be much longer.
However, mechanically it will be less good and has a cheaper build.
My Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov Cassegrain is just as good as a Questar optically.
But not mechanically.
My 8mm RKE eyepiece is better on axis than Televue EWA eyepieces.
So are some orthoscopics that I bought for £1 secondhand.
Although only 1% may test their expensive scopes, they should get an independent test or ask the local astro society boffin to test it.
However, I suspect many birdwatchers just don't know, or if they are told, they don't believe that they have poor quality scopes.
If a birding scope is only used up to 60x it may not even matter.
If I had an ATX 115, I would expect to use it at 200x.
I wrote a paper long ago about astro scopes, pointing out that good observations can be made with average or even poor scopes.
However, for serious planetary work one needs a very good but not perfect planetary scope.
Star tests are only part of the test. Actual planetary observations are needed for real assessment.
Paying top money does not ensure top quality.
I have driven new Rolls Royces that have several faults.
Regards,
B.
However, mechanically it will be less good and has a cheaper build.
My Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov Cassegrain is just as good as a Questar optically.
But not mechanically.
My 8mm RKE eyepiece is better on axis than Televue EWA eyepieces.
So are some orthoscopics that I bought for £1 secondhand.
Although only 1% may test their expensive scopes, they should get an independent test or ask the local astro society boffin to test it.
However, I suspect many birdwatchers just don't know, or if they are told, they don't believe that they have poor quality scopes.
If a birding scope is only used up to 60x it may not even matter.
If I had an ATX 115, I would expect to use it at 200x.
I wrote a paper long ago about astro scopes, pointing out that good observations can be made with average or even poor scopes.
However, for serious planetary work one needs a very good but not perfect planetary scope.
Star tests are only part of the test. Actual planetary observations are needed for real assessment.
Paying top money does not ensure top quality.
I have driven new Rolls Royces that have several faults.
Regards,
B.
rpg51
Well-known member
I took a look at Saturn last night with my scope. Kowa 883 with 25-60 zoom. Saturn was pretty darn small. But, if focus very carefully, could see what looked like a disc around the plant separated from the planet. So, it was definitely Saturn I was looking at. Viewing conditions were good but it was low in the sky when I was able to look. Maybe I will take a crack at a star test. I am pretty new to this stuff. Not sure what I would do if I got a bad star test result.
Opposition of Saturn was August 2, so now at its best.
But declination minus 18.5 degrees.
So very low in the sky.
Here I haven't seen it at all this year because of buildings.
I do see Jupiter and its moons with binoculars.
Saturn's rings are at 18 degrees, so well open.
With a Kowa 883 one might just see Cassini's division, but at 100x maybe. It may be too low in the sky for a good view.
With 60x there should be a gap between the rings and the globe at each end.
Titan, Saturn's largest moon should be easily seen in a dark sky when east or west.
Also Rhea, Tethys and Dione, and Iapetus, but one needs an excellent dark sky and steady Seeing.
These smaller moons are difficult with the Kowa 883 aperture.
One can look up Saturn's moons perhaps on the Sky and Telescope site.
The positions may be shown for an upside down astro scope view.
Saturn probably won't show markings on the disc, But Jupiter's belts should show easily at 60x.
Regards,
B.
But declination minus 18.5 degrees.
So very low in the sky.
Here I haven't seen it at all this year because of buildings.
I do see Jupiter and its moons with binoculars.
Saturn's rings are at 18 degrees, so well open.
With a Kowa 883 one might just see Cassini's division, but at 100x maybe. It may be too low in the sky for a good view.
With 60x there should be a gap between the rings and the globe at each end.
Titan, Saturn's largest moon should be easily seen in a dark sky when east or west.
Also Rhea, Tethys and Dione, and Iapetus, but one needs an excellent dark sky and steady Seeing.
These smaller moons are difficult with the Kowa 883 aperture.
One can look up Saturn's moons perhaps on the Sky and Telescope site.
The positions may be shown for an upside down astro scope view.
Saturn probably won't show markings on the disc, But Jupiter's belts should show easily at 60x.
Regards,
B.
Titan is to the left of Saturn August 6th to August 9th.
Iapetus is to the right of Saturn September 14 to September 30, but it looks like a very faint star, so a chart is needed. It is a long way from Saturn compared to nearer moons.
Rhea, Tethys and Dione are very close to Saturn and move rapidly. They would only be seen when at east or west extremes.
The brightness of the rings may mean that they are not seen except in excellent conditions.
A good 80mm to 100mm spotting scope should show the five moons, especially from southern USA.
B.
Iapetus is to the right of Saturn September 14 to September 30, but it looks like a very faint star, so a chart is needed. It is a long way from Saturn compared to nearer moons.
Rhea, Tethys and Dione are very close to Saturn and move rapidly. They would only be seen when at east or west extremes.
The brightness of the rings may mean that they are not seen except in excellent conditions.
A good 80mm to 100mm spotting scope should show the five moons, especially from southern USA.
B.
Please test it first... describe what you see or try to make images and post here... no use getting an extender when the sample does barely support 60x.
Joachim
Agreed, although if the Kowa 883 is at least of fair quality, the 1.6x extender would help.
If one could try the 1.6x extender before buying that would be useful.
As to an ATX 115 or a Kowa 99, both should show 5 Saturn moons at 100x, at least in southern USA where Saturn is higher.
My friend used to see all 5 moons with a 60mm f/12 Royal refractor.
The moon Enceladus might just be beyond the ATX 115 or Kowa 99, but I wouldn't discount an eagle eyed observer seeing it with either scope.
I have seen Enceladus with a 150mm f/10 Maksutov at 95x from a city balcony with a lot of light pollution.
B.
If one could try the 1.6x extender before buying that would be useful.
As to an ATX 115 or a Kowa 99, both should show 5 Saturn moons at 100x, at least in southern USA where Saturn is higher.
My friend used to see all 5 moons with a 60mm f/12 Royal refractor.
The moon Enceladus might just be beyond the ATX 115 or Kowa 99, but I wouldn't discount an eagle eyed observer seeing it with either scope.
I have seen Enceladus with a 150mm f/10 Maksutov at 95x from a city balcony with a lot of light pollution.
B.
henry link
Well-known member
Try this thread.
www.birdforum.net
Henry's simple guide to testing spotting scopes?
Does such a thing exist, @Henry Link? :) Cheers, Kumar
www.birdforum.net
With a statistician's hat on, that just means pushing the average up so it is "indistinguishable" from the performance of "cherry" optics. The alternative, making a lot of ATX 115 and only sell the ones above the 95th percentile in performance (or however we define optics to reach "cherry" status), does not make commercial sense.
I apologise for the pedantry, but I mentioned "with a statistician's hat on...".
I struggled for a while until I saw that the rigid eyecup that is included is actually a required part and not a back. That is what makes the sleeve rigid on the body which then lets you mount the TLS APO securely.
tenex
reality-based
Thanks! My error was not seeing the angles involved in a converging beam entering the prism. The compensation between objective and prism is an especially nice touch I hadn't imagined.
DRodrigues
Well-known member
Kimmo,
Did you tested complete new ATX115 or just replaced your X95 lens module by a X115, keeping your ocular module?
David,
I have done both.
Admittedly, my prism unit is also cherry picked, but with the prism units there is very little visible difference between best and worst units. Swarovski makes the prisms well, and they rarely show the dreaded prism line.
So, as long as there is no prism line visible, my opinion is that it's not worth the effort to compare a bunch of prism units and trying to find the best one.
Kimmo
I have done both.
Admittedly, my prism unit is also cherry picked, but with the prism units there is very little visible difference between best and worst units. Swarovski makes the prisms well, and they rarely show the dreaded prism line.
So, as long as there is no prism line visible, my opinion is that it's not worth the effort to compare a bunch of prism units and trying to find the best one.
Kimmo
DRodrigues
Well-known member
Good info to know!
I already have looked through a X115 and the thing that called more my attention was no CA at all, when compared to my X95, that is good for digiscopy - also with the extra light available.
The X115 showed SA as it seems to be common on samples star tested. Didn't noticed more aberrations but I'm not a star test expert...
The X115 handles well 2 extenders but the gain on resolution doesn't seem significant enough to compensate the loss of FOV for birding. By the way, the X115 seemed to produce a little more increase (a bit less than 1%), on magnification with the extender.
More within some weeks, hopefully with real cr-birding tests.
