Spotting Scope Research: Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica (2 Viewers)

[Will K]

Thanks again, Bill. I'll fix that on the next update.

 

[kimmik]

Have you considered astro refractors? They will take mag to theoretical limit. Bulkier and no manual zoom ring are the downsides. 100 and 120mm ed doublet are the sweet spot imo.

 

[Will K]

Have you considered astro refractors? They will take mag to theoretical limit. Bulkier and no manual zoom ring are the downsides. 100 and 120mm ed doublet are the sweet spot imo.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've not considered those, as yet.

I like the flexible usage that comes with spotting scopes, allowing high-quality views of both birds in the back garden and mountain scenery - qualities which might be maximised in something like a Harpia. But I'm still open to considering new possibilities. If astro refractors can match this combination of flexibility and quality without being too cumbersome, I'll check them out. Although that may end up being something I'd get in addition to a spotting scope - the right tool for every job, etc.

Can you name a few top-end models around 100-120mm which might be worth a look? Thanks!

[Edit: After a quick Google, I think if I was to enter the world of refractors, that would be an entirely different ballgame. I'd be tempted to find out which Schmidt-Cassegrain had the widest AFOV, and get myself into all kinds of trouble. My goodness, they can be expensive - £10K, £20K... I might try not to think about it]

 

[kcorry1]

I would like to suggest some additional criteria for your evaluation (which hopefully do not complicate your task!)

These are

1. The number of eyes you have and their impact on apparent magnification/ clarity
2. The tripod is part of the system from the start

So taking the eyes first, I recently compared (all be it at different times) a Swaro ATX with the usual zoom eyepiece on a 95mm against a BTX+95mm. The difference in clarity and comfort to me was night and day. 5 minutes through the ATX and I was starting to grumble at 60x because the image was too shaky, and my eye was uncomfortable being closed.

On a better tripod a week later a BTX+95 had me falling into the scope in disbelief. Its like watching a wildlife documentary without David Attenborough talking. And the experience of using 2 eyes just makes me feel I see more at the 35x magnification with two eyes than at 60x with one.

So because I am a wildlife and bird behaviour watcher and photographer (i.e. I do not run with year lists etc (not that there is anything wrong with that)), I purchased the BTX+95 combo.

My immediate challenge is then that my current tripod is not quite as good as the Gitzo one I tried it on in the store. Its ok, but I am going to upgrade to a fluid gimbal (both for photography at 1400mm and BTX scoping) and probably a 4 series Gitzo, and probably the Swaro BR balance rail. Why? Because the image through the scope is superb, but not perfect, and it’s the tripods fault.

I don’t feel a strong need for the extender, but i’ll probably go for it at some point.

So if the tripod can give you the wrong impression of a scope at 35x magnification, I am certain it can ruin it further at 60x or plus.

And in my view the gimbal choice is worth considering. My current video head is ‘ok’, and good enough to allow me to easily pan and follow a bird in flight. With binocular vision its really easy to follow them and feel like you are part of the flock (if thats your thing!)

Anyway, in conclusion, suggest you consider a BTX AND regardless of the scope chosen, consider a good tripod and head at the same time as part of the experience, especially at the magnifications you are considering.

Hope that helps more than it confuses!

All the best

Kevin

 

[Will K]

Thanks very much Kevin, great suggestions!

I have tried a BTX, but only briefly and under very poor viewing conditions, so I wouldn't surprise me that I have failed to appreciate their unique qualities. I almost always use my current scope at an angled position, i.e., from the side or 45 degrees, so I feel as though the BTX really restricts the comfortable area of use. But that's just my habit, which can be broken. I was also rather disappointed with the construction of the BTX eyepiece; I remember thinking that it was plasticky, cheap-feeling, and did not seem up to the build standard one would expect from such a costly - and certainly innovative - optical device. That lack of quality is also why I am hesitant to buy the forehead rest for the NL. Nevertheless, I'm always willing to give optics another go, so I'll reconsider the BTX because of that wonderful and unique dual vision experience you described so well, which must surely be unmatched by any other scope.

As for the tripod, I am fully sold on the qualities of Gitzo. If I was to upgrade my scope, I would certainly feel as though I would need to trade in my Series 1 Traveller for something more robust, such as a Mountaineer or Systematic, Series 2+, I guess [edit: maybe I'd splash out on a 4 or 5, if that's really going to make the winning difference].

 

[Tringa45]

Will,
If you have been using an 85 mm scope, I'm surprised you feel the need for more magnification than you already have (60x?).
With a perfect example (and there can be considerable sample variation) of the best scope under perfect seeing conditions you might be able to see the Great Red Spot on Jupiter or the Cassini Division on Saturn at 120x, but as Hermann pointed out it would be completely useless terrestrially.
On a 90 mm scope the exit pupil would be a mere 0,75 mm with a catastrophic loss of brightness.
A larger scope has the potential of higher resolution (Dawes' limit) and this is linearly proportional to the diameter of the objective, but you would need a magnification around or greater than the objective diameter in mm to recognize it on a high contrast test taget, i.e. sub 1 mm exit pupil.
If a scope can give you a legible contrasty view of newsprint at 30 m, and that could be achieved at 60x with a 90 mm scope and an acceptable exit pupil of 1,5 mm, that would be as much as anyone would require for birding applications and would be a good basis for comparisons.
At the more commonly used magnifications of around 30x smaller scopes can provide aesthetically pleasing views and offer portability (and cost) advantages. I have an older Swarovski ATM65 HD with 30x and a Kowa 883 with 25-60x. Both are excellent, but the little Swaro gets taken out more and I seldom feel I'm missing anything.
If you read some of the reports on BF of the ATX115 and Kowa 99 you will see that they sometimes disappointed when compared to their smaller siblings.
Lastly, as Kevin pointed out above, the best scope is useless without a good support. For a larger scope at 60x I would regard a Gitzo Series 2 as inadequate.
Gitzo, though undoubtedly good, is IMO overpriced and more stability can be obtained for a similar outlay.

John

 

[Will K]

Thanks, John!

There are so certainly many variables at play in all these choices and selections, its very hard to justify them completely. But if Lecia and Swaro are claiming that such boosters are worth their time to make, market and sell, and - by implication - worth our time to buy, then I'm at least happy to see what they have to offer and take it from there.

I guess the matter won't be settled until I'm sat behind a scope and am able to say: "Yep, this is the one for me". It might be a gigantic ATX 115 with booster, or it might be a comparatively humble Nikon Prostaff. I'd hate to rule anything out until I'd seen it with my own eyes. It will be exciting to find out which one will win my heart away from the Razor, or if that will happen at all.

In the meantime, I'm happy to take all the feedback I can get

 

[Tringa45]

But if Lecia and Swaro are claiming that such boosters are worth their time to make, market and sell, and - by implication - worth our time to buy, then I'm at least happy to see what they have to offer and take it from there.

SUVs sell like hot cakes and generate a lot of profit for their producers but no-one needs one, except perhaps for towing a caravan.
Another problem with extenders is that the minimum magnification of 40-50x makes it difficult to locate the bird, let alone a celestial object.

John

 

[wllmspd]

For binocular views you could add the 80/82/100/120/150mm binoscopes from oberwerk or APM, you can use nice wide field eyepieces and select the magniclfixarion you want. I run my APM70 at 35x or 50x, very immersive. Individual eye focussing, a little more fiddling if you constantly change the distance you’re liking at. They’re not light, so understanding your ability/desire to carry stuff about is important.
I was just out with a 127mm Mak, running around 65x, it can’t work at a lower power and so I’ve got a red dot finder to enable me to get it on target quickly as the field is rather small. It’s fun to turn tiny dots into detailed birds.

Peter

 

[Will K]

Interesting. I’ve not looked seriously at those yet, either. Flexibility would be low, again, but worth checking out.

Thanks!

 

[jurek]

I checked recently Zeiss Harpia and Swarovski ATX. Both are very good, Swarovski has nice warm color, however Zeiss has clearly more details and better view.

 

[henry link]

I think the first thing is to learn how to conduct the basic optical tests and by far the most important one of those is the the star-test.

There are many threads here that include star-test photos of some of the scopes on your list. Here are two to get you started:

Henry's simple guide to testing spotting scopes?

Does such a thing exist, @Henry Link? :) Cheers, Kumar

www.birdforum.net

Any customer review of new tsn-99?

Just wondering if anyone got this new scope and share their opinions?

www.birdforum.net

First step, star-test the scope you already have.

 

[Will K]

Thanks for the suggestion, Henry.

I’ve made a note of this and will see what I can discover.

 

[Hermann]

I like experimenting with empty magnification, and have even gone as high as 720x with my Razor and NL. The results were pretty crummy, of course, and I'm sure that any image over 70x or 80x would certainly be on its way to similar levels of deterioration.

I make a difference between "empty magnification", i.e. magnification too high for a given objective lens diameter, and the limits imposed by the seeing. With scopes in the 80-100mm range the seeing is usually the limiting factor. However, as soon as you get below ~1mm exit pupil in terrestrial viewing you're getting pretty close to empty magnification. Very small exit pupils in the 0.5mm range MAY work pretty well for astronomy, however, in terrestrial viewing they get exceedingly difficult, for a variety of reasons. Floaters for instance become very visible. Also it becomes very, very difficult to keep the eye pupil inside the exit pupil of the scope.

That said, I'm still curious to see for myself the results which might be provided by the Televid or ATX boosters. But the ability to compare experiences with other users here is very helpful. I might indeed find that an ATX 115 image at 119x is not going to do it for me. We will see!

Two points: If you want to experiment with boosters, get a Zeiss 3x12. There are plenty of threads on the Zeiss, and it's a very versatile instument. You can easily use it with binoculars as well. They're a lot of fun. And with regard to the ATX 115, make sure you star test it throughly before buying. Like the big Kowa there seems to be quite a few lemons about.

For maximum quality at very high magnifications you should look at astronomical refracters. Like the stuff Astro Physics makes.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

As for the tripod, I am fully sold on the qualities of Gitzo. If I was to upgrade my scope, I would certainly feel as though I would need to trade in my Series 1 Traveller for something more robust, such as a Mountaineer or Systematic, Series 2+, I guess [edit: maybe I'd splash out on a 4 or 5, if that's really going to make the winning difference].

Don't forget there are other manufacturers that make excellent tripod, such as Really Right Stuff and Berlebach. And if you want to get a tripod that can handle anything, have a look at Sachtler. However, their carbon fibre tripods will cost about as much as a top scope - without the head.

BTW, a Gitzo Series 2 will be too lightweight for high magnifications, especially if you want to use it in windy conditions.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

For binocular views you could add the 80/82/100/120/150mm binoscopes from oberwerk or APM, you can use nice wide field eyepieces and select the magniclfixarion you want. I run my APM70 at 35x or 50x, very immersive. Individual eye focussing, a little more fiddling if you constantly change the distance you’re liking at. They’re not light, so understanding your ability/desire to carry stuff about is important.

To be fair, the APM binoscopes are nice, but hardly suitable for "normal" birding. Too big, too heavy, too slow.

I was just out with a 127mm Mak, running around 65x, it can’t work at a lower power and so I’ve got a red dot finder to enable me to get it on target quickly as the field is rather small. It’s fun to turn tiny dots into detailed birds.

And a 127mm MAK is definitly unsuitable for normal birding IMO. Nice to look through, nice for astronomy, but not on in windy day at the coast.

Not really.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

So because I am a wildlife and bird behaviour watcher and photographer (i.e. I do not run with year lists etc (not that there is anything wrong with that)), I purchased the BTX+95 combo.

Nice combo. I find it too heavy for my puposes, but it's a really nice combo - provided you got a cherry.

My immediate challenge is then that my current tripod is not quite as good as the Gitzo one I tried it on in the store. Its ok, but I am going to upgrade to a fluid gimbal (both for photography at 1400mm and BTX scoping) and probably a 4 series Gitzo, and probably the Swaro BR balance rail. Why? Because the image through the scope is superb, but not perfect, and it’s the tripods fault.

And don't forget you tried the scope on a Gitzo in a shop. Outside, in the field, you may need even more stability. There's no wind in a shop ...

And in my view the gimbal choice is worth considering. My current video head is ‘ok’, and good enough to allow me to easily pan and follow a bird in flight. With binocular vision its really easy to follow them and feel like you are part of the flock (if thats your thing!)

Which video head have you got? There are several video heads that can handle the BTX+95mm quite easily.

Anyway, in conclusion, suggest you consider a BTX AND regardless of the scope chosen, consider a good tripod and head at the same time as part of the experience, especially at the magnifications you are considering.

That's a most important point. Too many people fork out a lot of money for a scope - and then go cheap on the tripod+head. That can be very expensive. At the very least they'll have to buy a better tripod+head sooner or later because they realize they need better support. Or the the scope topples over ...

Hermann

 

[Will K]

A somewhat dramatic update regarding my quest to try these scopes in person:

After phoning around a few retailers this afternoon, I managed to arrange an in-store comparison between the ATX 95 and Harpia 95 with a reputable dealer in London. I’ll probably be able to do that sometime next week.

However, I received an email with a scary £7400 bill!!! I’ve shopped with this retailer before, so they have my card details. They assured me that my credit card will not be charged, but, nevertheless, I phoned them again to make very, very, very sure that I’m not actually committing to buy anything. They say it is not really a ‘bill’, but just the way their system reserves the items from being sold in the meantime. I’m reassured, but still…

Gosh. They don't make this easy, do they?

 

[kcorry1]

Nice combo. I find it too heavy for my puposes, but it's a really nice combo - provided you got a cherry.

And don't forget you tried the scope on a Gitzo in a shop. Outside, in the field, you may need even more stability. There's no wind in a shop ...

Which video head have you got? There are several video heads that can handle the BTX+95mm quite easily.

That's a most important point. Too many people fork out a lot of money for a scope - and then go cheap on the tripod+head. That can be very expensive. At the very least they'll have to buy a better tripod+head sooner or later because they realize they need better support. Or the the scope topples over ...

Hermann

My current video head is a Manfrotto 701HDV. I’m unsure whether the instability I am seeing is because of this or the tripod (an old Manfrotto aluminium 095X I think its called). But there in lies the lesson personally learned - I want to upgrade both tripod and head now! For me though gimbal is the way to go I think, not another video head because of the photography side - and a shorter lighter tripod hence the model I am considering. (I now need to go look up what a cherry is…)

But completely agree on the key message, which kind of comes down to: make sure one budgets for the tripod and head at the same time to best match how you are going to use the optics (use including packing, carrying, extending, viewing, and moving photographers out of the way )

 

[wllmspd]

I am not sure a completely ideal setup exists. The 70mm binoculars and Mak i mentioned are for specific mostly hide based, not windy, not walking around days. If I’m walking around a lot then the 60mm comes out. Windy, then a more stable tripod is needed. For a general purpose, useful most times then a 65-80mm would probably be best on a top grade carbon tripod. There would always be times you might want a little differently, but it would be easier to carry more of the time. Similarly I carry 8x30 binoculars as they’re nice and light and work most of the time…. Higher power and larger objectives can help in some situations, but I wouldn’t feel so carefree to pick the others up for a walk.
Good luck on the 95mm trial, it will be very interesting to hear how you get on, does the shop also stock similarly high spec tripods?

Peter