I've been researching, reading, canvassing opinions, testing and comparing these scopes for weeks now, and have finally stopped swithering and placed my order. I really wanted to have a reason to buy the ATX 95, and I was almost persuaded by the mathematical formulae which prove that it's the best scope in the world, and the touted opinions that the 85 is a kind-of orphaned 'scope-without-a-purpose' or only for people who can't bear the weight of the 95, but in the end I'm convinced that the 85 is the better scope, at least for my purposes.
I understand the argument about objective size and magnification and limits of resolution and brightness etc, but I guess that doesn't take into account optical design - some lenses are simply better than others because of their design, despite their identical on-paper specifications. In practical terms and subjective tests I think the 85 is sharper, and suffers less from chromatic aberration than the 95. I compared the two scopes side by side in three different shops, twice in two of the shops under different lighting conditions, and the results were consistent:
- the 85 was brighter at 25x than the 95 was at 30x
- with both set to 60x, I preferred the 85's image
- when looking into backlit branches at 60x, the 85 showed no purple fringing, but it was definitely visible in the 95
- I stared through the 95 for a while, switching between 60x and 70x, and to be honest if there's detail I cannot see in the 85 at 60x, I don't believe I would see it in the 95 at 70x. The difference between 30x and 25x at the shallow end however, is much more important and useful to me.
Regarding sharpness, in addition to my own subjective opinion, my 'evidence' is the wealth of top quality digiscoping images that is available to see on the internet. I particularly recommend Tara Tanaka's gallery - in March 2014 Tara switched from using an STX 95 to an STX 85, and there was an obvious improvement in sharpness (Tara - if you're reading, I hope you're not offended by that!). This seems to be replicated across many users' galleries - the best shots in ATX 95 users' galleries are simply not as sharp as the best shots in ATX 85 users' galleries. Given Tara's obvious expertise, I don't think it can be argued that the difference in magnification is what's responsible for the difference in quality - I think it's clear that the 85 simply delivers a sharper image to the camera than the 95.
On top of all that, the 85 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 95! But I hasten to add that these were secondary considerations for me.
I expect this will annoy many people who are delighted with their 95s, but I thought I should post it for the benefit of people who might in a similar position and don't want to make a mistake at that level of investment. The best advice is, of course, to try before you buy and decide on what's best for your particular requirements. Don't rule out the 85 without testing it!
I understand the argument about objective size and magnification and limits of resolution and brightness etc, but I guess that doesn't take into account optical design - some lenses are simply better than others because of their design, despite their identical on-paper specifications. In practical terms and subjective tests I think the 85 is sharper, and suffers less from chromatic aberration than the 95. I compared the two scopes side by side in three different shops, twice in two of the shops under different lighting conditions, and the results were consistent:
- the 85 was brighter at 25x than the 95 was at 30x
- with both set to 60x, I preferred the 85's image
- when looking into backlit branches at 60x, the 85 showed no purple fringing, but it was definitely visible in the 95
- I stared through the 95 for a while, switching between 60x and 70x, and to be honest if there's detail I cannot see in the 85 at 60x, I don't believe I would see it in the 95 at 70x. The difference between 30x and 25x at the shallow end however, is much more important and useful to me.
Regarding sharpness, in addition to my own subjective opinion, my 'evidence' is the wealth of top quality digiscoping images that is available to see on the internet. I particularly recommend Tara Tanaka's gallery - in March 2014 Tara switched from using an STX 95 to an STX 85, and there was an obvious improvement in sharpness (Tara - if you're reading, I hope you're not offended by that!). This seems to be replicated across many users' galleries - the best shots in ATX 95 users' galleries are simply not as sharp as the best shots in ATX 85 users' galleries. Given Tara's obvious expertise, I don't think it can be argued that the difference in magnification is what's responsible for the difference in quality - I think it's clear that the 85 simply delivers a sharper image to the camera than the 95.
On top of all that, the 85 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 95! But I hasten to add that these were secondary considerations for me.
I expect this will annoy many people who are delighted with their 95s, but I thought I should post it for the benefit of people who might in a similar position and don't want to make a mistake at that level of investment. The best advice is, of course, to try before you buy and decide on what's best for your particular requirements. Don't rule out the 85 without testing it!
