Here are the new modular Swarovski scopes (1 Viewer)

[goldenwingedwar]

For you guys that have seen the new 85mm ATX, how much better would you say it is compared to an ATM/ATS 80mm HD?

I have recently been considering a new scopewhich I finally purchased today. I traded in an 14 year old Swarovski AT80 with 20-60 zoom.
A week ago I provisionally purchased an ATM 80HD with the 25-50 eyepiece to ensure I could have this scope if desired ( as stocks were running low ). I then waited for a new ATX80 to come in to stock so that I could compare the two scopes. The ATX comes with a 25-60 eyepiece.
After comparing the two scopes side by side out the first floor shop window I came to a fairly quick conclusion that the ATX compared to the ATM was definetly better. The clarity and sharpness was that bit better and for me as I was making a new purchase it is worth the extra 400 pounds outlay.
If weight is an issue this would be the only negative the 85ATX is noticeably heavier than the ATM which is a particulary light scope. Having been used to an old heavier Swarovski this was not as important as the optical quality.
One other point I also had the 20-60 eyepiece put on the ATM and comparing this with the 25-60 ATX the latter was quite a lot better.

 

[rockfowl]

Username and myself took out the ATX95 and the STM80HD (with a 25x50WA) this afternoon into the field, to compare and test directly and I have to say, the ATX performed quite magnificently. The clarity up to 70x is superb and of course with the 95 Objective, the light gathering takes it up a notch. I'm used to carrying around a ATS65HD so the weight difference is noticeable but in no way prohibitive, in fact its quite comfortable over the shoulder as it were and the balance on the tripod head is actually much better - I'm using the rather lightweight Manfrotto 701RC on a Velbon Sherpa Pro.

Pretty astonished so far and looking forward to pushing it a lot more in the coming weeks!

 

[username]

Username and myself took out the ATX95 and the STM80HD (with a 25x50WA) this afternoon into the field, to compare and test directly and I have to say, the ATX performed quite magnificently. The clarity up to 70x is superb and of course with the 95 Objective, the light gathering takes it up a notch. I'm used to carrying around a ATS65HD so the weight difference is noticeable but in no way prohibitive, in fact its quite comfortable over the shoulder as it were and the balance on the tripod head is actually much better - I'm using the rather lightweight Manfrotto 701RC on a Velbon Sherpa Pro.

Pretty astonished so far and looking forward to pushing it a lot more in the coming weeks!

It was good to get an ATX95 out into the field and give it a 'proper' test Mark...most illuminating...:cat:

Your example was dam fine indeed...a great scope and no problems whatsoever....unlike that 'other one' i looked at....!

ps...in fairness i should perhaps mention that the 'other one' was knackered....[why i don't know]....

The zoom ring ridiculously tight and the locking modular button would not 'ping out' so that, if not careful, the two pieces of scope would come apart...:eek!:

One would hope that individual scope i looked at was just a 'one off'....but it does, however, raise the issue of reliability/durability....and only time will tell i guess...!

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Phone Skope]

Excited to get one! I have not heard much negative info from anyone. Has anyone else?

 

[hinnark]

I wonder what's that in aid of, changing magnification by changing the objective lens instead of the eyepiece? Doesn't that lead to increasing costs and also a higher mechanical load for the connection between those two parts of the scope?

Steve

 

[Corné]

I have recently been considering a new scopewhich I finally purchased today. I traded in an 14 year old Swarovski AT80 with 20-60 zoom.
A week ago I provisionally purchased an ATM 80HD with the 25-50 eyepiece to ensure I could have this scope if desired ( as stocks were running low ). I then waited for a new ATX80 to come in to stock so that I could compare the two scopes. The ATX comes with a 25-60 eyepiece.
After comparing the two scopes side by side out the first floor shop window I came to a fairly quick conclusion that the ATX compared to the ATM was definetly better. The clarity and sharpness was that bit better and for me as I was making a new purchase it is worth the extra 400 pounds outlay.
If weight is an issue this would be the only negative the 85ATX is noticeably heavier than the ATM which is a particulary light scope. Having been used to an old heavier Swarovski this was not as important as the optical quality.
One other point I also had the 20-60 eyepiece put on the ATM and comparing this with the 25-60 ATX the latter was quite a lot better.

I agree. Although definitely better could be a bit too much. But there is a difference, no doubt. I compared two different ATX85 with two different ATM 80 HD (25-50X) at two different places. Clarity, sharpness, contrast, edges show differences, especially at higher magnifications, in favor of the ATX. In general: it's a bit more fun to look trough the ATX (No kidney beaning either). I am doubtful if I would have replaced an ATM 80 HD for an ATX85 if I'd already had one. Looking back, I am also doubtful whether the difference in price justifies the optical differences. At the moment of deciding and purchasing, the ATX was just too tempting...

Corné

 

[Sleeper]

Has anybody used the special eyepiece for spectacle wearers with the ATX scopes yet?

I have the special eyepiece but have not had chance to test out the difference as yet.

On paper what would this new eyepiece hope to achieve?
Thanks

 

[Dale Forbes]

Has anybody used the special eyepiece for spectacle wearers with the ATX scopes yet?
I have the special eyepiece but have not had chance to test out the difference as yet.
On paper what would this new eyepiece hope to achieve?
Thanks

Hi Sleeper
I presume you see talking about the special eyecup. Essentially the normal eyecup should be just fine for the vast majority of eyeglass wearers but there may be some who - for various reasons - would like just a little more space for spectacles or sunglasses which is why we have also made the additional eyecup as something of a trial to see if birders really find something like this useful.
For those who have not seen this eyecup, it is like the regular eyecup where the silicone top bit has been shaved off to make it almost completely flat, thus allowing glasses to get even closer to the lens.
Happy birding
Dale

 

[username]

Hi Sleeper
I presume you see talking about the special eyecup. Essentially the normal eyecup should be just fine for the vast majority of eyeglass wearers but there may be some who - for various reasons - would like just a little more space for spectacles or sunglasses which is why we have also made the additional eyecup as something of a trial to see if birders really find something like this useful.
For those who have not seen this eyecup, it is like the regular eyecup where the silicone top bit has been shaved off to make it almost completely flat, thus allowing glasses to get even closer to the lens.
Happy birding
Dale

Are there any plans for a similar eye-cup for the 25-50 zoom lens....?

[Being a spectacle wearer the positioning is quite critical at times]...:cat:

ps...good luck with the snow leopards BTW...B

http://username-beast.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Sleeper]

Hi Dale
Thanks for the extra info. I particularly appreciate your info regarding getting closer to the eyepiece as my prescription is on the high + side and even with aspheric lenses I still find my eyes are to far away from the actual glass of the optic I am using so I hope this helps a little.

Thanks.

No practical usage findings from any other users.

 

[Swissboy]

Are there any plans for a similar eye-cup for the 25-50 zoom lens....?

[Being a spectacle wearer the positioning is quite critical at times]...:cat:

.....

Having already attempted to go another route (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=240748), I would nevertheless also be interested in such a shaved-off silicon piece for the 25-50x eyecup. That would give me even better flexibility in putting my eye on the scope.

 

[horukuru]

My question to henry link and kabetz,

Will 95mm resolve more details than 85mm and 65mm in Digiscoping ?

 

[kabsetz]

Horukuru,

In theory, yes. Finest resolvable detail is directly proportional to aperture diameter. An 85mm should resolve 1.3 times smaller details than a 65mm, and a 95mm 1.12 times smaller detail than an 85mm.

But, I haven't tried these myself.

- Kimmo

 

[RJM]

Digiscoping rez relies on the scope magnification, effective focal length/F ratio and the camera's pixel subtense. The real benefit of larger aperture for the digiscoper is light gathering. In this case, the 95mm delivers ~1/3stop faster shutter speeds than the 85mm at the same exposure values.

 

[RJM]

Here is an ATX digicoping test arranged by Swaro's Clay Taylor. FWIW, I found similar results in my experiments done last Winter with a dslr on the Kowa 883. I have since gone back to using a pocket digicam.

 

[Neil]

Here is an ATX digicoping test arranged by Swaro's Clay Taylor. FWIW, I found similar results in my experiments done last Winter with a dslr on the Kowa 883. I have since gone back to using a pocket digicam.

I wouldn't have used a 7D for this test but I guess they wanted to standardise on something as a base point.
Big glass will usually win out.
When I put the Nikon 500/4 AFS VR lens on the Nikon D800 I'm blown away by the quality. The 600/4 AFS VR would be even better and what about the 800/5.6 that Nikon have announced.
The digiscoping advantages are many though and the new Swarovski kit narrows the gap further. Lightweight,less expensive,guiet,weather proof and you can observe too. Hard to beat unless you want to fast action shots.
Neil.

 

[henry link]

Thanks for the link, RJM.

I’ve spent considerable time puzzling over the so called “resolution test” in the article. I finally concluded that, while the images of the test pattern may be relevant to photography, they are quite useless as indicators of the true resolving power of the lenses under test.

The 800mm Canon lens is initially set up at about 90’ where it resolves Group1/Element3 on the USAF chart. In terms of angular resolution that’s an extremely poor result for a 143mm lens, about 3 arcseconds. To frame the same size image the Swarovski scope at 30x (1050mm equivalent) must have been moved to about 118’. At that distance it resolves the same 1/3 on the chart, but at 118’ that represents angular resolution of 2.27 arc-seconds, not just equal to the Canon lens, but actually better though still very poor for the 95mm aperture.

When the Canon lens is fitted with a 1.4x tele-converter and moved to 126” it can only resolve Group 1/Element 2, but because of the greater distance that actually represents improved angular resolution of 2.4 arc-seconds. When the Swarovski is zoomed to 40x (and presumably moved to 157”) it also resolves 1/2, which corresponds to 1.92 arc-seconds. At this point the Canon image is described as having higher “acutance” or contrast. Naturally it does, it’s produced by a larger aperture optic operating at lower magnification.

Finally the Swarovski is zoomed to 70x at 126' where it resolves (on my computer screen) Group1/Element6, or about 1.5 arc-seconds, the best angular resolution shown in any of the images.

As you can see the angular resolution in this test is all over the map, depending on the distance to the target and the magnification factor. Perhaps this concept of “resolution” is somehow useful in photography, but it shouldn’t be confused with the true resolving power of a lens. Only the 70x Swarovski image begins to approach showing the resolving power of the ATX-95 objective (the one I measured was about 1.25-1.3 arc-seconds). I imagine part of the problem is that the 7D sensor pixels are too large to reveal the optical resolution of the lenses at such low magnification factors. Another possibility that might be contributing is turbulence from testing over pavement on a sunny day. Whatever the reasons, I think it’s safe to say that these images fail to show the true resolution of ether the ATX-95 or the Canon lens.

 

[RJM]

Henry, I think these resolution "tests" are lens aperture limited at all magnifications for the ATX95 and Canon 7d using the ATX APO fl=30mm adapter. I believe when doing resolution calculations that the Rayleigh Limit is assumed for the benchmark in photography lens testing, so max resolution for an ATX95 is ~1.5arcsec. I calculate the pixel subtense for the 7D to be ~1arcsec at the lowest mag/shortest focal length (30x/900mm or 1440mm effective) for this combo.

I suspect one of the causes for varying resolution values is diffraction effects due to this setups small effective F ratios, F10-22 @ fl=900mm-2100mm range (1440mm - 3360mm effective using 7d). This is the primary reason why I went back to small sensor digicam with its larger effective F ratios, F2.6-5.6, at similar focal lengths.

What suprises me more in this particular test is the color error seen at the higher 40x+ mags. I do not see this in the Kowa 88 when using a pocket digicam at equivalent focal lengths. Almost makes me wonder if his manual focusing was a little off.

 

[dipped]

Thanks for the link, RJM.


When the Canon lens is fitted with a 1.4x tele-converter and moved to 126” it can only resolve Group 1/Element 2, but because of the greater distance that actually represents improved angular resolution of 2.4 arc-seconds. When the Swarovski is zoomed to 40x (and presumably moved to 157”) it also resolves 1/2, which corresponds to 1.92 arc-seconds. At this point the Canon image is described as having higher “acutance” or contrast. Naturally it does, it’s produced by a larger aperture optic operating at lower magnification.

You meant 126' and 157' not 126'' and 157'' right?

 

[henry link]

Dipped,

Yes, everything should be in feet, not inches. However, it turns out that the 118’ and 157’ distances are wrong because the article incorrectly specified 35mm as the focal length of the Swarovski camera adapter. It’s actually 30mm, which would shorten the distances and therefore reduce the angular resolution calculations by about 17%.

RJM,

Sometimes it seems to me that those of us who approach optics visually speak an entirely different language from photographers and digiscopers. Maybe I can try to translate.

First, line pairs are easier to resolve than point sources, so you can expect better than Rayleigh limit resolution on a line pair chart like the USAF 1951, about 115/D rather than 138/D. That translates to about 0.8 arc-seconds for the 143mm Canon lens and about 1.2 arc-seconds for the ATX-95, provided that the optics are perfect. These angular resolution figures are constants, unaffected by magnification. The higher focal ratios at higher magnifications result from increases in effective focal length, not decreases in aperture, so they don’t change the angular resolution of the lens.

I calculate (based on the formula 1500/ lens focal ratio) that the size of the smallest resolvable line pair projected onto the camera sensor by the ATX-95/TLS APO set at 40x is 119 lp/mm (if the optics are perfect). At 70x the same angular resolution of 1.2 arc-seconds is projected on the sensor at about 68 lp/mm. If the 7D sensor is capable of resolving 119 lp/mm at its surface why do we see only Element 1/Group 2 resolved at 40x and (presumably) 135’, but then see Group 1/element 6 resolved at 126’ and 70x? The conclusion I draw is that the sensor is the limiting factor at 40x since we know the lens itself is resolving to at least 1/5 or 6 at 135'. I assume you’re getting better results at low magnifications with a smaller sensor camera because the pixels are smaller and therefore capable of resolving smaller line pairs at the sensor surface.

As for the apparently excessive CA in the 70x image of the center pattern, the explanation on my computer screen seems to be that the angle it subtends when viewed at about 2 feet is about 3 times wider than the angle the center pattern would subtend when viewing through the eyepiece at 126’ and 70x. In other words it’s about the size of the eyepiece image at 210x, not 70x, so it’s not surprising that some longitudinal CA is visible.

Henry