Swarovski ATS80 HD (1 Viewer)

dogfish said:

Swissboy, you've spoiled all our fun!

Sean

Click to expand...

I was so sick and tired of the delay in connecting that my mind was elsewhere - well, that's my excuse. It was annoying last night - and even this morning it's variable. I only post to two other similar sites and they don't have such a problem - but they don't have the sheer volume of posts that this does.

scampo said:

One of the most respected reviewers had this to say about the scope you claim to be worse than a plastic toy:

"On the whole, it [Swaro 80] rises to the level of the Zeiss Diascope 85 FL, and it depends on the individual users’ preferences and habits which would be the better birding partner."

It could be added that one of this forum's most respected bird photographers uses the Zeiss scope. The gallery has very many top quality shots taken with this scope for all to see. Its merits don't need repeating.

Btw, if what you say about your mate's scope is true - it needs servicing, very badly indeed.

Click to expand...

Steve,

I was using a WiFi connection in Spain which ground to a halt last night so couldn't come back to this.

We have been looking at an "orange billed" tern (possibly an Elegant but more likely Lesser Crested) at Huelva marshes under very difficult conditions (long distance, poor air quality, rain, etc) and I can honestly say that the Zeiss with zoom eyepiece just could not pick this bird out from the hundreds of Sandwich Terns it was with, whereas my Swaro could, and Roger (the Zeiss owner) admitted it. He also owns the Swaro scope which he keeps in the U.K. and says it is the better scope optically.

I'm not the type who gets into the "mine's bigger and better than yours" argument, and I am really just posting here for the benefit gah55 who, unfortunately, has flown off the handle a bit. I think that with a fixed widefield eyepiece there is very little to choose between the top three scopes. But, I have seen several examples of the Zeiss zoom which are, to me, far less than perfect. I have already stated previously that I consider my Swaro 20-60 a waste of money; it is useless under any conditions above x40 and the only time I really use it is to reduce mag down to x20 for digiscoping.

I originally chose the Swaro scope (after upgrading from a straight Optolyth HD80 Fluorite which is still optically excellent but not waterproof) because I prefer the large single focussing wheel - I initially found the dual focus of Zeiss and Leicas too fiddly, but am now changing my mind on that. There are a lot of things wrong with the Swaro in terms of design and mechanical build (not in order of importance):

1. The "sighting aid is a total waste of time - I have tried gently persuading it to move but can never get it to actually align with the centre of FOV.

2. The rubber eye-piece cover does not fit properly, will not stay in place, and in any sort of wind it flapps about against your face - bloody nuisance.

3. The front lens cover is a joke. The two spring-loaded lugs last about a week before they fall out rendering the cover useless. I have had four replacements but they have all failed.

4. The Swaro stay on case is the most overpriced "hand-bag" in the world. It is far too tight-fitting and all those zips and press studs are a pain in the butt. Using the focus wheel is difficult and it makes an unpleasant scratching sound against the case. You can't extend the lens hood without unzipping part of the main body of the case. I tried a Skua case but that was just as bad but in other ways (I think the LCE one which I have seen others using is the best, but haven't got around to buying one). If you get the case wet it takes about three weeks to dry out completely.

5. The thumbscrew which allows the body of the scope to rotate will not stay tight, even though I never use it for the purpose for which it was intended; it just comes loose and allows the scope to rotate.

6. The whole of the front half of the scope body gradually unscrews itself from the rear half thereby changing the focul length/focul range. I discovered this while trying to digiscope a Red-necked Phalarope at Castro Marim and could not understand why I could not get the bird in focus until I removed the stay on case. I sussed out that each time I extended the lens hood I was twisting as well as pulling and this was gradually unscrewing the scope barrel.

7. Not the scope itself, but I bought the swing-away DCB which was an absolute disaster. The first time I tried using it the little lever which locks the thing in place broke off - sent it straight back to the retailer for a refund and got the DCA instead.

Despite all the above it is still a good (and in my opinion the best) scope optically, but I think I will move on to Leica when the new version appears (hopefully next year). I should add that my gear gets heavy usage as I am birding six days a week almost every week of the year, but I think that for the price the build quality should be better.

Not that Leica are necessarly any better in this respect. I could go on about the problems with my Ultravid bins (I don't know anyone who owns these who has not had problems). I bought these for the weight factor and am glad that I kept hold of my Trinovids which, I think, are optically better but like having a brick around your neck (they also have been back to Leica in Germany twice to have the loose hinge and rough focussing wheel sorted out).

Colin

gah55 said:

No , what you were saying was your opinion was right and mine was wrong. I do not care if your dog , cat ,fish , or bicycle prefer the Zeiss I DO NOT . So leave it at that because i aint intertested in anybody giving me hassle for my opinion.

Click to expand...

Hey, why all the aggression?? You’ve purchased one of the finest scopes available. For many people owning such an expensive piece of equipment is just a dream.
Defending your choice in such a manner is really not necessary.

Glen Christian said:

Hey, why all the aggression?? You’ve purchased one of the finest scopes available. For many people owning such an expensive piece of equipment is just a dream.
Defending your choice in such a manner is really not necessary.

Click to expand...

Hang on a minute; I have just been back and re-read all the posts in this thread and, to some extent, I can understand why gah55 is thrashing about in his pram. He has just bought his cracking new Swaro scope of which he is justifiably proud and wanted to say that, as a previous Zeiss fanatic, he was surprised at how much better HE thought the Swaro was against the Zeiss. Yet, he is being told, in a roundabout sort of way, that because "respected" reviewers and "respected" bird photographers think more highly of the Zeiss that poor old gah55 might not be quite on the ball with his assessment of the kit. I agree with gah55's comparison of the Swaro against the Zeiss (at least as far as the two scopes mounted with zoom eyepieces are concerned). Given that the Zeiss has an 85mm objective lens it is disappointing in terms of brightness and clarity and falls short of the Leica 77mm.

If you are still there gah55 I would advise you to just cool it a bit, enjoy your scope, and continue to participate here in the knowledge that whatever you say someone else will have a different if not totally opposed opinion.
:eat:

Swamp Hen said:

Hang on a minute; I have just been back and re-read all the posts in this thread and, to some extent, I can understand why gah55 is thrashing about in his pram. He has just bought his cracking new Swaro scope of which he is justifiably proud and wanted to say that, as a previous Zeiss fanatic, he was surprised at how much better HE thought the Swaro was against the Zeiss. Yet, he is being told, in a roundabout sort of way that because "respected" reviewers and "respected" bird photographers think more highly of the Zeiss that poor old gah55 might not be quite on the ball with his assessment of the kit. I agree with gah55's comparison of the Swaro against the Zeiss (at least as far as the two scopes mounted with zoom eyepieces are concerned). Given that the Zeiss has an 85mm objective lens it is disappointing in terms of brightness and clarity and falls short of the Leica 77mm.

If you are still there gah55 I would advise you to just cool it a bit, enjoy your scope, and continue to participate here in the knowledge that whatever you say someone else will have a different if not totally opposed opinion.

Click to expand...

At the heart of this is that some people tend not to read posts with sufficient care; sometimes, too, posters are none-too-thoughtful about what or how they write, not taking sufficient account of the email-type context in which the message will be interpreted. When emotion comes in through the door, it's been said that logic flies out through the window but one thing is sure, when emotion gets involved, readings tend to become erratic.

Anyway, not to extend this, and the points have already been made - but it is comments such as "blows out of water" and "dull", as well as "worse than a plastic toy" that lead to replies being made as a rebuttal to such comments. In my case, I have not, if my post is read carefully, sought to suggest Zeiss is "better" than Swaro (anyway, I am lucky to have Nikon ED50 and a Zeiss 85, my son has an ED82 and I sold my Swaro 65 to my brother three years ago).

But it would be amazing if Alula and other professional and respected reviewers were so far off the mark as is being suggested, or the rest of us amateurs for that matter. That's not to say the Zeiss or whatever is better, but it is to try to stop the exaggerated hyperbolic - and I would say rather silly - stuff being casually dropped into threads where people might seriously and genuinely be seeking advice about which scope to buy.

It's an objective fact that I have spoken to two birders who have swapped from Kowa to Swaro and say they don't think the Swaro is worth the extra money; whether they'd swap back, I really don't know; I also know a top local birder who decided on Nikon instead of Swaro; I myself chose Zeiss over Swaro for its zoom...

I don't think people (or their eyes) are as different as I keep reading they are, myself - but what I do think is different is a zoom eyepiece compared to a 30xW eyepiece. Put the latter on any of the top four scopes and I doubt anyone would care which one they owned once they had got used to its mechanics and ergonomics - some initially like the Swaro focusing and its rubber cover; some like the Nikon for compactness and its faithfully natural hue; some like the Zeiss because it's a lightweight scope with double focusing and so on, some like the Leica for its red badge...

(-;

Put a zoom eyepiece on those scopes and I think it's a different ball game. But that's all been said. What I will never believe, though, is that those many good folk here who could have chosen Swaro but chose Zeiss instead, having tried both scopes, are fools (and it must also be said that the generally paid price for the Swaro is some three hundred pounds ($600) more than the Zeiss or Leica).

Out of pure coincidence, I was using my Zeiss this morning to view a very distant peregrine and a keen local birder came along, looked through my scope and uninvited, commented on what a brilliant view it provided and on how the yellow bill of the peregrine looked so sharp and deadly.

Just checked my watch - I've been sending this post and editing my silly typos (tired eyes looking through the plaggy-coke-bottle Zeiss all morning!) for what seems hours thanks to the erratically slow connection.

Sample variation is certainly the reason for the unresolvable disputes about the optical quality of one brand vs. another in this and similar threads. I don't doubt that everyone is reporting accurate impressions of the scopes they have seen, but there is more quality variation between individual specimens within brands than there is from brand to brand. A good Swaro specimen will beat an average Zeiss and vice versa (Swamp Hen's mate's Zeiss is clearly below average). Don't assume that weak specimens are rare among these expensive scopes. Once again, STAR TESTING, my friends, is the only sure way to tell whether you are seeing a bad design or a defective sample of a good design.

Steve,

Don't be over-sensitive. You are obviously in love with your Zeiss and that is fine. My remark about the plastic toy was obviously, to anyone with common sense, a bit of hyperbole. As far as reviews from so-called "highly-respected" people are concerned, well, I have read a right load of old c**p from some of them. Added to which (which you make reference to in your last post), none of us see the same thing in precisely the same way, and the variance in human eye quality and perception of light and colour are much greater than you might imagine (as a former lecturer in optical mineralogy where students are faced with the complexities of interference colours in polarised light microscopy I can safely state this as fact).

I just felt a bit sorry for gah55 who's posts gradually deteriorated due to a bit of "brow beating" which could be interpreted as a sort of bullying. Not everyone has the sartorial eloquence to defend their standpoint without resorting to crudities. And, those school-masterish posters who tut-tut and tell people that they are being awfully rude also need to be either more positive or shut up.

I can feel the beginnings of another thread washing over me, but I will finish by saying that there is a lot about the optics business which the average punter does not understand. My mate Roger with the Diascope 85 owns a business which produces specialist optical products; his company produce things as diverse as glass windows for wood-burning stoves to lenses for RN submarine periscopes. He provides some materials for Zeiss and that is the only reason why he has the Diascope - he got it at cost price, 40% of the U.K. retail price (now there's food for thought - ever wondered why similar top-line optics have similar prices? - does the term "price-fixing cartel" come to mind?). Also, everyone assumes that Leica products are produced by world class German scientists and engineers - not so. Another friend of mine who lives over here has a Hong Kong-based company which started out producing lenses for overhead projectors (and still does produce them). He is now now producing binocular (not telescope) lenses for Leica which are shipped to Portugal where they are assembled with mechanical parts made in Korea and flogged as "German" products. Whether you are talking binoculars, computers or washing machines the same outsourcing of components is everywhere to the extent that Jo Public is now just buying a name, not a product.

C'est la vie.

henry link said:

Sample variation is certainly the reason for the unresolvable disputes about the optical quality of one brand vs. another in this and similar threads. I don't doubt that everyone is reporting accurate impressions of the scopes they have seen, but there is more quality variation between individual specimens within brands than there is from brand to brand. A good Swaro specimen will beat an average Zeiss and vice versa (Swamp Hen's mate's Zeiss is clearly below average). Don't assume that weak specimens are rare among these expensive scopes. Once again, STAR TESTING, my friends, is the only sure way to tell whether you are seeing a bad design or a defective sample of a good design.

Click to expand...

Henry,

I've never done star testing but I'm willing to give it a go, even though I live in a place that is overcast, rain or fog 75% of the time for the next four months. I looked it up on the net and have a couple of questions;
1) The scope I have is an 80 with a 20-60x. The steps would the steps to follow start with allowing the scope to adjust to the air temperature for a couple hours to avoid "tube currents" in the scope.
2) Point scope at a bright star, focus. It should be sharp and clean/clear.
3) Move the focus ring all the way in and notice/remember the view type.
4) Move the focus ring all the way out and notice/remember the view type.
5) The inside focus view and the outside focus view should be identical. The the balance of light in each ring should be the same from core to outside.
6) AS an alternative test can I look at a light during daylight hours? Possibly a christmas light and perform this with the ability to determine that this scope has a flaw and I would like to return it and try/get a replacement?
7) If they are not perfect, what is the next step?
8) If the rings/views are near identical/perfect does that mean I'm one happy camper?

Greg.

I prefer using an artificial star like a spherical Christmas tree ornament reflecting a tiny image of the sun. Place the "star" at least 100' from the scope and as high above the ground as possible. Steady air is important. Use the highest magnification, 60x will be enough for this kind of test. Birding scopes almost never produce anything close to a "perfect" star test. The best I've seen or heard about came from Nikon Fieldscopes. A "cherry" specimen of one of those is capable of very respectable star test. A really good specimen of a fast birding scope will show strong rings on one side of focus and very weak ones on the other side (about 5 rings out of focus). Most large birding scopes with focal ratios below f/6 are so undercorrected for spherical aberration and/or spherochromatism that no rings will be visible on the outside (close side) of focus. Assembly defects are what really ruin the optical quality of these scopes when they are present to a significant degree. Astigmatism, coma, and pinching are the most common. Astigmatism causes the diffraction rings to be oval shaped rather than round with the long axis of the oval switching by 90 degrees on one side of focus compared to the other. Coma or miscollimation of the optics causes the bright spot in the center of the diffraction rings to be off center, compressing the rings in that direction. Pinching causes the diffraction pattern to assume odd shapes or may flatten one side and produce a flare on the other side. Sometimes in the worst cases all of these are mixed together. I would worry less about aberrations, which are nearly always present in birding scopes and concentrate on defects. Unfortunately most scopes will show at least a small amount of one of the defects. Large amounts and multiple defects should not be there. I've posted this same information a few times. I'll try to remember that it's here in the future and post a link.

Henry

Swamp Hen said:

Steve,

Don't be over-sensitive. You are obviously in love with your Zeiss and that is fine. My remark about the plastic toy was obviously, to anyone with common sense, a bit of hyperbole. As far as reviews from so-called "highly-respected" people are concerned, well, I have read a right load of old c**p from some of them. Added to which (which you make reference to in your last post), none of us see the same thing in precisely the same way, and the variance in human eye quality and perception of light and colour are much greater than you might imagine (as a former lecturer in optical mineralogy where students are faced with the complexities of interference colours in polarised light microscopy I can safely state this as fact).

I just felt a bit sorry for gah55 who's posts gradually deteriorated due to a bit of "brow beating" which could be interpreted as a sort of bullying. Not everyone has the sartorial eloquence to defend their standpoint without resorting to crudities. And, those school-masterish posters who tut-tut and tell people that they are being awfully rude also need to be either more positive or shut up.

I can feel the beginnings of another thread washing over me, but I will finish by saying that there is a lot about the optics business which the average punter does not understand. My mate Roger with the Diascope 85 owns a business which produces specialist optical products; his company produce things as diverse as glass windows for wood-burning stoves to lenses for RN submarine periscopes. He provides some materials for Zeiss and that is the only reason why he has the Diascope - he got it at cost price, 40% of the U.K. retail price (now there's food for thought - ever wondered why similar top-line optics have similar prices? - does the term "price-fixing cartel" come to mind?). Also, everyone assumes that Leica products are produced by world class German scientists and engineers - not so. Another friend of mine who lives over here has a Hong Kong-based company which started out producing lenses for overhead projectors (and still does produce them). He is now now producing binocular (not telescope) lenses for Leica which are shipped to Portugal where they are assembled with mechanical parts made in Korea and flogged as "German" products. Whether you are talking binoculars, computers or washing machines the same outsourcing of components is everywhere to the extent that Jo Public is now just buying a name, not a product.

C'est la vie.

Click to expand...

Found this on www. neuroticscopeowners / myscopeisbetterthanyours.org
Of late a particularly virulent strain of Swaroitis has been detected. The symptoms are classic, a neurotic disposition regarding other brands which manifests itself in compulsive attacks on the qualities of other scopes. An inability, despite owning a great scope, to relax and enjoy birding. Then there is the medically recognised 'blind spot' which means Swaro owners cannot appreciate the optical parity offered by other top end kit. The prognosis is gloomy, as the new, more expensive Kowa will undoubtedly increase the insecurity felt by many who genuflect to the Swaro altar. Another thing to look out for is a superficial jollity underpinned by a deeply patronising tone. Sufferers face an agonising choice, stay loyal to the badge or embrace an optically superior scope.

Best wishes to all
Jim

henry link said:

Greg.

I prefer using an artificial star like a spherical Christmas tree ornament reflecting a tiny image of the sun. Place the "star" at least 100' from the scope and as high above the ground as possible. Steady air is important. Use the highest magnification, 60x will be enough for this kind of test. Birding scopes almost never produce anything close to a "perfect" star test. The best I've seen or heard about came from Nikon Fieldscopes. A "cherry" specimen of one of those is capable of very respectable star test. Assembly defects are what really ruin the optical quality of these scopes when they are present to a significant degree. I would worry less about aberrations, which are nearly always present in birding scopes and concentrate on defects. Unfortunately most scopes will show at least a small amount of one of the defects. Large amounts and multiple defects should not be there.
Henry

Click to expand...

Henry,

Thank you this is helpful and will give me something to work with. I even wonder about packing a christmas ornament sphere when checking out scopes and use as a target? Would you check scopes that way? The Nikon is an interesting scope, my wife and I have had quality Nikon cameras and binoculars for over 35 years. When we went out to buy a scope this year it was supposed to be a no-brainer and get a Nikon. The 82ED with the 20-60 zoom, there is a FOV/eyerelief problem for someone who wears spectacles. We also found problems with color aberations that we didn't find with some other scopes. It could have been the scope or eyepiece samples with the color, we checked two different scopes, different locations and different days with the same result. The rest of the scope was top notch but could not live with those two items, it still kind of bugs me that we weren't happy with the Nikon.

henry link said:

Sample variation is certainly the reason for the unresolvable disputes about the optical quality of one brand vs. another in this and similar threads. I don't doubt that everyone is reporting accurate impressions of the scopes they have seen, but there is more quality variation between individual specimens within brands than there is from brand to brand. A good Swaro specimen will beat an average Zeiss and vice versa (Swamp Hen's mate's Zeiss is clearly below average). Don't assume that weak specimens are rare among these expensive scopes. Once again, STAR TESTING, my friends, is the only sure way to tell whether you are seeing a bad design or a defective sample of a good design.

Click to expand...

Another thing, Henry is the way some people look after their scopes. I can tell you I've seen them dropped, thrown... all sorts. It's amazing they survive at all in some hands; yet ask those guys if they look after their scopes and they'll assure you they do. It's a macho thing.

Swamp Hen said:

Steve,

Don't be over-sensitive. You are obviously in love with your Zeiss and that is fine...

Click to expand...

Always was a sensitive sort. I thought the new-man was supposed to be?

Anyway, as I said, people fail to read posts. As you've just shown. The words are seen - not all of them though, oddly - and then the misinterpretation sets in. I teach English and people's inability to interpret language fascinates me - and email language is amongst the worst.

I hope you won't find evidence that I'm in love with any object, even one made by Carl Zeiss; sensitive yes, fetishistic, no (I don't even love my cats or birds). I thought I made all that pretty clear (you didn't notice - as I say, it's normal; it happens all the time). I also always praise the obvious qualities of other optics and stay as objective as I can. I think you'll find less emotion in my posts than exist in some others' here (perhaps even in your own, for example, no one has bullied anyone in this thread).

Leica opened up in Portugal a long time ago and it set their marketing team a real headache for quite some years; I suspect they've never fully recovered - akin to BMW buying dear old Rover. Good for Portugal, though - they've shown they can make top notch optics and most people now only notice the red badge. I suspect your friend supplies unfinished lenses (are they called 'blanks'?) that are then selected and polished by the final manufacturer - just a guess.

I doubt there's a cartel in this kind of field - much of the profit these companies make is not in consumer optics but in industrial optics - Zeiss is par excellence in industrial and medical optics, I suppose. Mark-ups always seem atrocious when quoted as you have, but fixed costs are one thing and variable costs another (your figure will be based on fixed costs); distributors don't like stocking expensive goods without a decent return either; I wouldn't! But the big English distributors and retailers are disgustingly greedy in my view - look at the costs of the same item in the UK and in the USA.

I suspect the real cost involved in optics is not in the glass or the blanks but in the final polishing, the R&D and in the enormous reject rate - especially owing to air bubbles.

passerine said:

Found this on www. neuroticscopeowners / myscopeisbetterthanyours.org
Of late a particularly virulent strain of Swaroitis has been detected. The symptoms are classic, a neurotic disposition regarding other brands which manifests itself in compulsive attacks on the qualities of other scopes. An inability, despite owning a great scope, to relax and enjoy birding. Then there is the medically recognised 'blind spot' which means Swaro owners cannot appreciate the optical parity offered by other top end kit. The prognosis is gloomy, as the new, more expensive Kowa will undoubtedly increase the insecurity felt by many who genuflect to the Swaro altar. Sufferers face an agonising choice, stay loyal to the badge or embrace an optically superior scope.

Best wishes to all
Jim

Click to expand...

Ahh, KOWA, wasn't that some form of WW1 torture used by the Nippons to get you to admit that Jap optics were the best in the world?
:gn:

scampo said:

Always was a sensitive sought. I thought the new-man was supposed to be?

Anyway, as I said, people fail to read posts. As you've just shown. The words are seen - not all of them though, oddly - and then the misinterpretation sets in. I teach English and people's inability to interpret language fascinates me - and email language is amongst the worst.

I hope you won't find evidence that I'm in love with any object, even one made by Carl Zeiss; sensitive yes, fetishistic, no (I don't even love my cats or birds). I thought I made all that pretty clear (you didn't notice - as I say, it's normal; it happens all the time). I also always praise the obvious qualities of other optics and stay as objective as I can. I think you'll find less emotion in my posts than exist in some others' here (perhaps even in your own, for example, no one has bullied anyone in this thread).

Leica opened up in Portugal a long time ago and it set their marketing team a real headache for quite some years; I suspect they've never fully recovered - akin to BMW buying dear old Rover. Good for Portugal, though - they've shown they can make top notch optics and most people now only notice the red badge. I suspect your friend supplies unfinished lenses (are they called 'blanks'?) that are then selected and polished by the final manufacturer - just a guess.

I doubt there's a cartel in this kind of field - much of the profit these companies make is not in consumer optics but in industrial optics - Zeiss is par excellence in industrial and medical optics, I suppose. Mark-ups always seem atrocious when quoted as you have, but fixed costs are one thing and variable costs another (your figure will be based on fixed costs); distributors don't like stocking expensive goods without a decent return either; I wouldn't! But the big English distributors and retailers are disgustingly greedy in my view - look at the costs of the same item in the UK and in the USA.

I suspect the real cost involved in optics is not in the glass or the blanks but in the final polishing, the R&D and in the enormous reject rate - especially owing to air bubbles.

Click to expand...

You gotta be joking !!! :eek!:

Swamp Hen said:

You gotta be joking !!! :eek!:

Click to expand...

So you do read closely. I take it all back!

scampo said:

So you do read closely. I take it all back!

Click to expand...

Well - there I go, overly generous; it's that time of year, though. But I take some of it back!

(-;

passerine said:

Found this on www. neuroticscopeowners / myscopeisbetterthanyours.org
Of late a particularly virulent strain of Swaroitis has been detected. The symptoms are classic, a neurotic disposition regarding other brands which manifests itself in compulsive attacks on the qualities of other scopes. An inability, despite owning a great scope, to relax and enjoy birding. Then there is the medically recognised 'blind spot' which means Swaro owners cannot appreciate the optical parity offered by other top end kit. The prognosis is gloomy, as the new, more expensive Kowa will undoubtedly increase the insecurity felt by many who genuflect to the Swaro altar. Another thing to look out for is a superficial jollity underpinned by a deeply patronising tone. Sufferers face an agonising choice, stay loyal to the badge or embrace an optically superior scope.

Best wishes to all
Jim

Click to expand...

yeah, right!

scampo said:

Well - there I go, overly generous; it's that time of year, though. But I take some of it back!

(-;

Click to expand...

Just received notification of this - site playing up something awful over here.

Colin


:flowers:

One more note on star testing. I realize I haven't said enough about infocus and close to focus star images. To be useful, out of focus star images should be kept to 5 diffraction rings or less, 3 is probably better. Not much is clearly visible once the focus reaches 8-10 rings out of focus. I can't do better than Kimmo Absetz information on post #7 on this thread, so here is a link:http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=749307

I 've had a question about using 30X. I think that's too little magnification. Even 60x is marginal for an 80mm telescope. It's easier to see what is happening at 100x or more.