So what are they looking at/for?. Just because I don't have a need for a scope after dusk, doesn't mean there isn't a need. I'm not the voice of all birders. I could learn something useful from you here.
As expected, the 2 news from Swarovski today were the NL52s.
Yep. And both muggle binoculars without a stabilizer. More dinosaurs, that's what the world needs.
No, but ... What can Swarovski do? Further increase the size of the objective? Not really, after all they don't seem to be able to make the 115mm to an acceptable standard. And the STX/ATX/BTX versions are already pretty heavy anyway. Increase the length of the scopes to get some better correction and more consistent quality? Difficult, even though there's a reason why the slow 65mm Swaro has got perhaps the most consistent quality of all Swarovski scopes. I actually think the best they can do is to minimize the number of mediocre to weak big scopes.
What about getting on a list for some AP refractor?I have some decisions to make...
What Peter said
, a zooming BTX and/or a variable magnification extender - I personally would like a straight view zooming BTX... 
Have both the 95MM ATX as well as the 115MM ATX and no complaints from me on neither of them...What Peter said
It probably will get a bit heavier but doesn't need to be bigger - see NL 10x42 vs. EL 10x42
Another advantage of the modular X system is that the ocular modules can be updated without the need to exchange objective modules...
Regarding refractors, I'm more on the side of flat-field telescopes but those >= 115mm are too big and heavy to be practical for birding... If not these limitations, a TV NP127is would interest me...
By the way, the X115 is an excellent scope although showing Spherical Aberration. Yes, should be even better and there seem to be more "lemons" than Swaro usually produce, but any owner of "lemons" can send them to Swarovski to be corrected.
The X115 is the only spotting scope of the class, without any direct rival from other producers until now!
Excellent setup. All else being equal, what do you find to be the main advantage of the 115 over the 95?
We know you are "very happy" with your scopes and that you don't have them at the same place, so can't compare them side by side.
One is bigger and bulkier then the other but I keep one of them at my winter home in SriLanka and the other is kept here with me in USA while we are here for the summer... Really both are not required but...!
Yes I never really had them side by side as one is here in USA and the other is back at our winter hideout in Sunny SriLanka.. I do know the 115MM is a boat anchor but since i have it on my Gitzo Tripod it is no big deal as I do not hike with either of them. No I have no BTX as it is no interest to me and no I never used the Zeiss Scope but I am sure it is a lovely piece... I do plan on snagging me the new NL Pure 14X52 when they become in stock and hopefully before we pack up and head back to SriLanka..We know you are "very happy" with your scopes and that you don't have them at the same place, so can't compare them side by side.
Did you ever looked through a Zeiss Harpia?
At #47, I forgot to mention a wider zoom range to the future X eyepiece modules - the Harpias have wider AFOVs until the maximum magnification and wider zoom range X95 vs. Harpia 95 - these are advantages for some observers...
In my case, I would prefer at least 25-75x for X95/115 - I need high mags...
During many years I used 30-90x on my Optolyth 100... Before Swaro released the extender for the X series, I used astro-combos 82 to 102º zooms of 30-96x102º and 42-146x 92º...
Did you ever looked through a BTX? Why you don't have one?
I'm presently using a astro-combo with binoviewer CR BinoBirding 35-120x, with AFOV similar to the X at the higher mag position, but I wish Swaro produced something with similar specs but smaller and less heavy...
Fair enoughOne is bigger and bulkier then the other but I keep one of them at my winter home in SriLanka and the other is kept here with me in USA while we are here for the summer... Really both are not required but...!
sounds good to me!Why no interest? What you would like that the BTX hasn't?
I have the ATX/BTX 115 combo. I spend most of the scope time with the BTX as it is very pleasant to use for enjoying the view over extended time. One element that helps my BTX enjoyment is the ME 1.7x extender option. That allows two magnifications for the BTX. Usually I just watch the 35x level on the BTX and find that 35x really is about a sweet spot for me, but sometimes the atmospheric conditions make the extender at 60x quite wonderful. I use the ATX when I think variable magnification will be desired. I can do photos with either ATX or BTX on my mobile phone using the Swarovski VPA 2. So, if you don't use a BTX because of the single magnification reason, perhaps it is worth trying a BTX with, and without, an ME 1.7x extender at a dealer.Yes I never really had them side by side as one is here in USA and the other is back at our winter hideout in Sunny SriLanka.. I do know the 115MM is a boat anchor but since i have it on my Gitzo Tripod it is no big deal as I do not hike with either of them. No I have no BTX as it is no interest to me and no I never used the Zeiss Scope but I am sure it is a lovely piece... I do plan on snagging me the new NL Pure 14X52 when they become in stock and hopefully before we pack up and head back to SriLanka..
HAH Good one
