Tripod/head combo for Swaro ATS 65 (1 Viewer)

wdc said:

I've gotten so much useful information from this forum that it is pleasure to give something back, or at least share what seems to be working with others.

Click to expand...

I feel the same; so much generosity and good will... and patience with people who are just beginning and are full of the-same-old-questions. I used to manage a forum with +10k users and the great atmosphere that we share in BF is really remarkable (well, obviously, there's always a wrong note in the melody, but it's 100 % understandable).

With 65mm of aperture, 35x seems to work well. Also, that magnification surpasses the threshhold of identifiable birds that 8 and 10x can provide at certain distances. I found I could ID ducks that were out of reach, and in some cases pick up shorebirds that I never would have been able to spot with a handheld bin at lower magnification.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Lower scope mags of 15x or 18x (in my personal experience) don't add a lot to what can be seen with 8-10x in terms of ID (especially if the binocular is supported on a pole or something, that really increases chances of ID). For me it has to be +30x. In good light (we have a lot of that here in the Mediterranean), with the MM3ED-60 you can make use of 40x (45x doesn't add a lot but a dimmer view). Hence my curiosity of what the ATSHD 65 can do, if it can give a reasonable 45-50x in good light, I'm more than happy (I assume 45x must be dim in a 65 mm scope). I've had the pleasure of using an ATS HD 80 20-60x, but not the 65.

As for the tripod, you may be able to do better than the Gitzo at a lesser price....
.... What is the most stable tripod under 3.5 lbs is my current line of inquiry.

Click to expand...

I'll see what I can get. Do keep us posted on your findings!
Thanks again.

yarrellii said:

For me it has to be +30x. In good light (we have a lot of that here in the Mediterranean), with the MM3ED-60 you can make use of 40x (45x doesn't add a lot but a dimmer view). Hence my curiosity of what the ATSHD 65 can do, if it can give a reasonable 45-50x in good light, I'm more than happy (I assume 45x must be dim in a 65 mm scope). I've had the pleasure of using an ATS HD 80 20-60x, but not the 65.

Click to expand...

Its possible that the physics of optics are not in our favour, or at least wholly corresponding to our interests. By that I mean the exit pupil calculation is likely playing a big role in our perception of brightness. In daylight, when I go above 35x on my scope, I can literally see it getting dimmer. Below that I don't notice it. 65/35= 1.85 mm exit pupil. So, maybe my 65 year old eyes have a 2mm something-ish daylight pupil... When the exit pupil drops below 1.85, I readily perceive the image getting darker and the FOV is also shrinking rapidly. (all this in the 25-50 zoom)

So, an 80mm scope. 80/1.85 yields 43.2x as the potential 'threshhold' magnification before I perceive the image getting darker in an 80 mm scope? (with daylight adapted eyes). Not much of a gain over the 65mm, and this is all conjecture, so could be utter nonsense..

More questions must be asked of more experienced users...

-Bill

Bill, this is really interesting, I never thought about that in those precise terms. I've also experienced the image getting dimmer when you really squeeze all the juice from the zoom, but on a bright winter day like today I could spot a meadow pipit at 40x (with my MM3ED-60 and the SDL v2) and have better details than at 30x. At 45x, however, I could see no real gain over 40x. Maybe my threshold is then 1.5 (60/40), so an ATS 65 could give me a higher quality 40x, or even go a bit further, taking into account that it not only has 5 mm more of diameter than the MM3ED-60, but also the ATS HD is considered a very bright scope (I know that the 25-50 is supposed to be brighter; but in spite of the FOV, I find having both 20x and the possibility of a very dim 50x useful; but then I've never used the 25-50). Thus, following the same 1.5 rationale, the ATS 80 HD could provide a usabel 53x. But then, you need very good watching conditions to make use of that. So I guess the idea is having a "better 40x" and the possibility of going beyond that should the necessity arise (and, in my experience with 32x, it does arise quite often. But that's just me. YMMV).
Thanks!

Corroboration?

https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3786570&postcount=23

referencing a Meopta 82 S2 with a 20-70 zoom...

"...and it darkens when I zoom between 50-70x."

... and here:

https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/bes-spotting-scopes-of-2013/272948

Reviewing the Meopta S2 with the 30-60 zoom ep:
" ....At 46x we observed reduced brightness,.."

82/46 = 1.78mm exit pupil

I can see it in my Leica, you see it in the Opticron. I think its safe to assume the exit pupil is a major culprit, and therefore predictable, given that different eyepieces, quality of materials and build will only vary the outcome to some degree. Obviously the objective size is the other critical piece of the puzzle, but for hand-carried spotting scopes the practical range is 50-95 mm. Besides improving glass coatings, I would guess that using simpler eyepieces is about the only way to improve light transmission in the system. Nevertheless, it will still be subject to the exit pupil diameter as one key limiting factor.


-Bill

Well, if a behemoth of a scope like the Meopta S2 82 suffers from reduced brightness from 46x on (at 1,78 mm EP, as you say)... it is clear that we can expect limited performance from the little ATS65. I just pulled the trigger on one, so I'll be letting you now in the coming weeks, as I get it and try it. Now I'll be reviewing all the names and references regarding tripod/head to see what I can get that is a nice compromise between stiffness and portability (and that can outclass my Vanguard VEO235 without breaking the bank).

Congratulations with that. The differences may not be as dramatic as you imagined, but you might notice a subtle accumulation of improved qualities... sharper field, greater contrast, less CA.. I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

I'll be testing the FLM tripod some more this weekend with the scope.

-Bill

Tripod&head for 65mm

Hi,
If this can be of any help, here is my current experience with my 65mm scope (ATX65, relatively similar size/weight as ATS65) and the tripod head that I have: a Gitzo GH1720QR (on a Manfrotto tripod). This choice of head is not the result of thorough research and hands on comparisons by myself, but something I was happy to get second hand locally.
I really love being able to lock the head, both pan and tilt, with one single large knob! The movement is certainly smooth enough for me. It is lightweight but good enough for the 65mm. It is not counterbalanced, but I’m not really missing that when using just the 65mm scope (thanks to the very easy single locking knob and compact scope). I’m not totally sure how much I (dis)like the quick release plate system though, but thus in general, I do like the GH1720QR with the 65mm: nice to use, not too heavy, with a scopac or similar a very nice combo for longer walks.

There is only one important remark I have: if you want to digiscope (at least with more than a smartphone), you’ll probably need another tripod head: while I find this Gitzo head great for using just the scope, it is not OK for digiscoping with the added weight and length of e.g. a DCB II + a camera (I’ve tried it with my old Fuji X100): the whole setup becomes too tail heavy (e.g. I couldn't easily take some pictures of the moon at night, with the scope oriented upwards, because the head would very slightly move a bit further upwards after locking it, making it very difficult to frame the moon).

I’m therefore considering either buying another tripod head (counterbalanced and with longer plate) and/or a Swarovski stabiliser/balance rail for digiscoping with such a camera setup (not lightweight anyway, but I want to limit the further spendings) or just switching to smartphone-digiscoping (making my own custom adapter). I’ll probably go that second route as it seems a more sensible choice for a lightweight setup and because I would like to limit further spendings (adding everything up, incl.accessories, it isn't cheap...).

If I were to look for another head, I’d certainly look at the Manfrotto MVH500AH based on posts on this forum and specs: it seems smooth, OK weight, counterbalanced (though fixed), possibility to move the scope more to the front with the long plate, OK price for such specs.

As it would probably be a bit better being able to work without adapter/QR-plate, directly connecting the scope’s foot in a compatible Manfrotto head, I’m wondering if that is possible and a good idea with the MVH500AH: from looking at the size of the QR-plate of the Manfrotto MVH500AH, I’m not sure if it is possible at all with that head to work without any QR-plate. Is there anyone who has tried that and would be willing to share his/her experience!?

mbb said:

...the tripod head that I have: a Gitzo GH1720QR... ...I’m not totally sure how much I (dis)like the quick release plate system though... ...while I find this Gitzo head great for using just the scope, it is not OK for digiscoping with the added weight and length...the whole setup becomes too tail heavy... ...I’m therefore considering either buying another tripod head (counterbalanced and with longer plate)...

Click to expand...

You might consider first trying a longer plate with your GH1720QR. You won't have counterbalance, but you can achieve perfect balance, which I think is much more important. This head uses the larger-than-Arca sliding plate standard used by Manfrotto, Gitzo, Sirui and some others. Those plates are available in various lengths. Alternatively, as I prefer, you can get an Arca adapter and use any long Arca sliding plate, many of which are available with anti-rotation lips.

Here's an example of a simple Gitzo-Arca adapter:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Metal-Adap...703904?hash=item2ce5c8cfe0:g:LhAAAOSwd4tTwN2r

Here's an excellent long Arca-type plate with anti-rotation lip to use with the adapter:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062507-REG/desmond_dpl_169_7_3_4_long_lens.html

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

You might consider first trying a longer plate with your GH1720QR. You won't have counterbalance, but you can achieve perfect balance, which I think is much more important. This head uses the larger-than-Arca sliding plate standard used by Manfrotto, Gitzo, Sirui and some others. Those plates are available in various lengths. Alternatively, as I prefer, you can get an Arca adapter and use any long Arca sliding plate, many of which are available with anti-rotation lips.

Here's an example of a simple Gitzo-Arca adapter:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Metal-Adap...703904?hash=item2ce5c8cfe0:g:LhAAAOSwd4tTwN2r

Here's an excellent long Arca-type plate with anti-rotation lip to use with the adapter:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062507-REG/desmond_dpl_169_7_3_4_long_lens.html

--AP

Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestions!!
I was also considering (1) switching to the Gitzo GHF2W (potentially with a longer plate), as it has a switchable counterbalance, but it is expensive and would make me loose the single-knob-lock, or (2) adding a Swarovski SSR II, like a longer plate but with additional support point, which is less but still expensive and adding weight and bulk. But your suggestions really interest me.

Do those options still provide some kind of «*security*» lock/pin, blocking the plate from sliding out, dropping the scope, if the locking knob is not well tightened?

Those plates seem a lot less bulky and heavy than the SSR II. Do you know if the SSR II adds significant stiffness and vibration control compared to such plates, thanks to its additional support point at the scope’s bend/ocular side?

mbb said:

Thank you for the suggestions!!
I was also considering (1) switching to the Gitzo GHF2W (potentially with a longer plate), as it has a switchable counterbalance, but it is expensive and would make me loose the single-knob-lock, or (2) adding a Swarovski SSR II, like a longer plate but with additional support point, which is less but still expensive and adding weight and bulk. But your suggestions really interest me.

Do those options still provide some kind of «*security*» lock/pin, blocking the plate from sliding out, dropping the scope, if the locking knob is not well tightened?

Those plates seem a lot less bulky and heavy than the SSR II. Do you know if the SSR II adds significant stiffness and vibration control compared to such plates, thanks to its additional support point at the scope’s bend/ocular side?

Click to expand...

The options that I show don't include a security pin. I've been using scopes for decades and never had an instance of one slipping out of a clamp, so I've not worried about that. If I _were_ worried about that, I think I'd solve the problem simply by tying one end of a shoelace or such around the scope foot and the other end somewhere around the tripod head. The scope wouldn't be able to fall far.

I don't have experience with the SSR II. My experience with the other plates is that they are quite solid and so I've had nothing to complain about.

--AP

mbb said:

I was also considering (1) switching to the Gitzo GHF2W ...SNIP... Do those options still provide some kind of «*security*» lock/pin, blocking the plate from sliding out, dropping the scope, if the locking knob is not well tightened?

Click to expand...

The GHF2W has a stop pin to keep the plate from completely sliding out. I just got one and think my quest for a suitable ATX95 head is finally over.

Alexis Powell said:

The options that I show don't include a security pin...

Click to expand...

For anyone reading this thread in the future, I just noticed when using my scope, recently, that I was incorrect when I said (in post #31) that the options I gave (in post #29) lacked retention security features. The plate has threaded sockets for a security screw at either end and it comes with at least one such screw. Using both, it can be made captive on the adapter. The adapter interacts with the security release button/tab on Gitzo heads, so it can't slide off even when loose until the head release button is held down.

--AP

Does the foot of an ATX fit directly into a GHF2W or GH1720QR or must you use a plate?

JWalck said:

Does the foot of an ATX fit directly into a GHF2W or GH1720QR or must you use a plate?

Click to expand...

The ATX modules that I've seen (recently) have an Arca-Swiss type foot, so they will fit directly into the GHF2W (which is Arca-Swiss compatible) but for the GH1720QR you would need a slip-on adapter (in my post #29) because that head uses the wider Gitzo/Manfrotto/Sirui sliding plate standard. I don't know if ATX modules were always made with this foot [Edit: No, earlier production was not AS compatible]. I know that some older Swarovski scopes had a foot that fit a different Manfrotto non-sliding standard (the 200PL = 3157 plate mounted with the length of the plate perpendicular to the line of sight).

--AP

JWalck said:

Does the foot of an ATX fit directly into a GHF2W or GH1720QR or must you use a plate?

Click to expand...

As an addendum to Alexis' explanation:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3763038#post3763038
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3834730#post3834730

forent said:

As an addendum to Alexis' explanation:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3763038#post3763038
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3834730#post3834730

Click to expand...

I remember those threads (esp. the latter). One thing I refrained from asking before is what kind of clamp are you using that you can't adjust it narrow enough to properly grip an A-S type plate that is on the narrow side? I know that some kinds of non-adjustable lever-actuated A-S type quick releases might have this problem (if they don't have sufficient "spring" in the mechanism to accommodate plates of different widths), but most Arca-type clamps tighten with a knob, so it's just a matter of turning the knob once or twice more to get a tight grip on a narrow plate.

--AP

Alexis, unfortunately it is not that easy.

I use screw knob clamps solely, not only to avoid fitting issues but also because I assess them to be safer. But the stop positions (= jaws completely closed) of Arca-style clamps of U.S. makers like e.g. RRS, Kirk, Wimberley etc. (and their countless Chinese copies) still are too wide (= the distance between jaws is still too large) to catch some European Arca-style plates that adopt the narrow width of the *original* dovetail plates made by Arca-Swiss itself. This is one of the rare cases where the original does not represent the factual industry norm anymore.

Strange but true.

forent said:

Alexis, unfortunately it is not that easy.

I use screw knob clamps solely, not only to avoid fitting issues but also because I assess them to be safer. But the stop positions (= jaws completely closed) of Arca-style clamps of U.S. makers like e.g. RRS, Kirk, Wimberley etc. (and their countless Chinese copies) still are too wide (= the distance between jaws is still too large) to catch some European Arca-style plates that adopt the narrow width of the *original* dovetail plates made by Arca-Swiss itself. This is one of the rare cases where the original does not represent the factual industry norm anymore.

Strange but true.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Swarovski adopted an Arca-Swiss foot that doesn't fit the _vast_majority_ of A-S style clamps that are in use? What an absolutely incredible mistake! I can only imagine that Swarovski is already planning a redesign to the RRS/Wimberley/Jobo etc standard. Why haven't we seen more discussion of this problem?

As far as I know, RRS/Kirk/Jobo etc plates are reverse compatible to original Arca-Swiss clamps. All my stuff is from RRS, Kirk, or Desmond, so I haven't had issues. I've heard mixed reports as to whether some Novoflex plates are too narrow for some RRS clamps. I didn't realize the same was true of original Arca-Swiss plates, or the AS foot of the ATX! Could Swarovski's mistake be intentional, to encourage use of their Professional Tripod Head?

--AP

Alexis, yes, I dare to say that Swarovski designed their scope foots with the clamps of European makers in mind and did not think further. You have to know that some mainly German brands have established a common Arca-style "standard" called UniQ/C: https://www.uniq-c.de.

The UniQ/C plates are pretty narrow, more or less like the original Arca plates. The UniQ/C clamps accept wider U.S./Chinese plates nonetheless. But UniQ/C plates in US/Chinese clamps are a different story, unfortunately.

For many years I have been a great admirer of the Arca-style system. It was a revelation after years with the Manfrotto-200PL system. When I bought my Swarovski ATX 65 and 95 lens modules I was more than happy that they had changed their foot design from 200PL to Arca-Swiss. What a disappointment to discover that the foots slipped through my fully closed Sunwayfoto and Wimberley clamps! Even the clamp of my Gitzo head locks just the foot of the ATX 95 while I had to glue a metal plate under the foot of my one year older ATX 65 (see my links above). Well, now it works for me but it could have been so much easier if Swarovski and the other European brands had adopted the dimensions of the leading U.S. brands for their QR systems.

But to be fair one has to bear in mind that the vast majority of scope users has not the faintest idea of tripods and QR attachments - at least here in Germany. Many of them buy dirt cheap tripods - rather suitable as music stands - for their ridiculously expensive Zeiss/Leica/Swaro equipment. It took me years to convince after all one half of my birding fellows that a flimsy 50€ tripod with a 2-way plastic QR head is just not appropriate for the task. How many people like you and me, in contrast, talk about the optimum Arca-style foot size? I'm convinced that we are an economically irrelevant minority. Hence, I doubt that it is very risky for Swaro to ignore the nagging of curmudgeons like us. In fact, I wrote Swarovski an e-mail dealing with the foot issue: their answer was friendly but showed that they simply did not get the point. Or maybe they refused to admit their mistake, who knows?

Finally, to address your question "Why haven't we seen more discussion of this problem?":
Q: What's the meaning of the word 'ignorance'?
A: I don't know and I don't care.