Laughable pricing at £1895.
That's Ted Floyd on the right, and (I now realize) in previous photos also. Well-known birders must have got early samples to try.
I'm sure it's lovely, but even I can't imagine using 30-40x handheld, with 1.4mm exit pupil. And if you're going to lug a tripod, why not have a 65mm?
None, assuming the quality is upto Swarovskis usual standard. But I personally don't believe that's a sufficient enough reason to charge nearly 2K? Its the same scenario as when Kowa bought out the 553, I was shocked a how poor the image was when I tried one at Bird Fair (and I love the image my 883 gives), even more so given the price. I've yet to see a 553 being used in the field.What scope of this size, weight and quality would be better for the money?
What scope of this size, weight and quality would be better for the money?
No. After all, all scopes look similar to some extent: there's an eyepiece and an objective lens, and of course a focuser ...Is it possible that given the location of the tripod mount, helical focus, 56mm objective and zoom rather than fixed lens that there is some shared "genetics" with Hawke/Celeston/Bresser/Svbony 56mm scopes? Eyepiece and prism design looks different (as one may expect at 10x price) but I wonder if this may be swaro's first foray into outsourcing their kit to reduce the price?
But a 15x56 is just 15x magnification. Put the new Swaro on a tripod (or even a monopod) and you can use far higher magnifications. No "normal" binocular, not even the Zeiss 20x60S, can replace a scope. Even a small scope like the new Swaro.A 15x56 slc would be my preference at this price and weight range.
True. in my experience, smaller exit pupil makes magnification less effective. Thats partly why people dislike bino doublers.But a 15x56 is just 15x magnification. Put the new Swaro on a tripod (or even a monopod) and you can use far higher magnifications. No "normal" binocular, not even the Zeiss 20x60S, can replace a scope. Even a small scope like the new Swaro.
Hermann
The marketing is pure BS, simple as that. You can't handhold a short 17-40x scope and expect to see a lot of detail. Even a 15x binocular - which is far easier to use handheld - is a challenge. The efficiency of a 15x binocular is well unter 60%, what do you expect it to be for a scope that's far more difficult to hold steady?No need for tripod when looking at the marketing...
Birds in flight without a fluid head will be challenge....
If the optics are up to scratch, it WILL kill the Kowa: Much better field of view, paricularly at low magnifications, excellent eye relief for spectacle wearers, armour.If it was a bit cheaper then they would have killed Kowa 553 sales. The field of view looks very nice, especially at the low end where it doesn’t get too narrow. Also stopping at 40x means things aren’t stretched too far and dim. Sure it’ll sell well for those who have the funds.
My preference would be a BTC 56 binocular, even at 2kg and 4k euros, if having central focus and be a straight version!...But a 15x56 is just 15x magnification. Put the new Swaro on a tripod (or even a monopod) and you can use far higher magnifications. No "normal" binocular, not even the Zeiss 20x60S, can replace a scope. Even a small scope like the new Swaro.
Hermann
2nd hand Swaro HD 65 with 25-50 w Eye PieceWhat scope of this size, weight and quality would be better for the money?