• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swarovski ATX 95 vs Zeiss Harpia 95 - A Personal Comparison (2 Viewers)

Will K

Too well-known member
United Kingdom
I finally had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between the Swarovski ATX 95 and the Zeiss Harpia 95.

After a few weeks of emails and phone calls, I found an optics store with staff who were kind enough to actually break the seals on four separate boxes worth nearly £7500 and put some kits together for me to try. I had to travel all the way to London from the coast to do it, but it was worth it!

The 95 options make a fair comparison, of course. My main plan of campaign is to check out some other scopes and modular options, including the ATX 115, BTX, Leica APO Televid, the big Kowas, Nikon Monarch, etc., including some of the extenders available for these scopes. But I think the two I selected here make a good place to start. I also didn't want to push my luck with the kind folk who were breaking all the seals on valuable stock on my behalf, so I was very happy to take what I could get.

These are only my subjective impressions, of course. I'll start with the physical objects themselves, and then give a (very superficial) overview of the optics... (spoiler alert: I didn't buy either of them).

IMG-0716b.jpg

The first thing I noticed was how much larger they were than my Vortex Razor 85mm. Not surprising, of course. I originally selected the Razor for its compact size (its pretty dense for an 85mm), and I've been getting away with using this little Gitzo 1545T; but I would certainly need something a little sturdier if I was to move to 95mm.

Both the ATX and Harpia feel like big, serious scopes. The ATX has a chunky ocular section, whereas the Harpia is slender toward the eyepiece and has a completely different sense of scale and balance. This is more obviously apparent in these over-the-shoulder images; the camera placement is a little different between them, but the Harpia is still presenting a slighter and (to my eye) more appealing aspect to the user. The ATX eye piece is a little too big, for my tastes; the Harpia allows you to get close without having the sense of so much 'equipment' against your face, as it were!

IMG-0715b.jpg

In terms of build quality, I thought they were rather similar. Like some others, I have been disappointed with Zeiss' rubbery aesthetic in recent models, and impressed by Swaro's more delicate machining. I have to say, both scopes were a little disappointing, physically. Neither of them 'wowed' me with their build quality, like (in bino world) the Leica Noctivid, or, in terms of overall ergonomics and physical aesthetics, the NL Pure. The rings and joins on both the ATX and the Harpia are a bit wide, and I can imagine dirt and mud getting into them quite easily. They also didn't seem that symmetrical. The Harpia was probably my preferred design and build of the two, overall. Its certainly somewhat nicer than their lower-end Gavia model, but - as one of the shop assistants pointed out - it still looks like "a big hunk of rubber".

IMG-0697b.jpg

The focus wheels and zoom mechanisms are both fine, nothing more. I don't really like the design of any of the adjustment mechanisms on these scopes; they just look like dirt traps, to my eyes, and I feel as though I'd be cleaning them after every use. I don't have this feeling with the Razor because of the more subtle pattern on the grips.

I'm also not sold on having the zoom rings on the objective barrels, which is what both manufacturers have gone for with these models. But I guess that just reflects what I am used to. It's hard to say anything authoritative here, because with both these models being brand new, I assume that they will lose a significant amount of stiffness over time. There were slightly awkward to use, and probably for this reason. Straight out of the box, at least, the ATX was the easiest to focus.

IMG-0698b.jpg

From a user's perspective (i.e., looking toward the eyepiece), the Zeiss was the most appealing. I think the ATX eyepiece is just too large to be comfortable, and I'm not a fan of the overall look of the scope in this setup. The Zeiss is better, but I was not falling in love with it, either; I think the front half is - shall I say it? - ugly?

These pics below show-off both scopes' impressive 95mm objectives, and the glass on display is very handsome. Both sunshades were stiff, but I think the ATX comes out a little bit further than the Harpia. Both seemed fine.

IMG-0718b.jpg

Now to take a brief and inexpert look at the views these particular scopes provided that afternoon.

I wasn't able to do a star test, because I don't fully understand what I'd be looking for or what the results might mean, as yet, so please forgive that omission.

These first pics were taken at the lowest zoom for both scopes, and the major factors which are immediately apparent are 1) the massive AFOV on the Harpia; 2) the superior brightness of the Swaro; and 3) additional edge distortion on the Harpia compared to the ATX's flat field. That's not to mention the fact that the ATX is showing 30x and the Harpia is on 23x. For me, the fact that the Harpia was able to show this size of AFOV at 23x was phenomenal. But is it enough to compensate for the lack of flat edges and what seems to be a notable loss of brightness...?

IMG-0702b.jpg

At max zoom, both scopes can reach an impressive 70x. The Swaro is still the brightest of the two, and the Harpia is showing some strange curvature effects; these are apparent around the black outlines of the sign. The Zeiss image is a little woozy and dark for my taste, here. I don't think many people would disagree when I say that the Swaro is the better view, here.

IMG-0703d.jpg

I didn't buy either scope, and my search for an 'upgrade' continues. I was expecting, perhaps hoping, that one of these two scopes would 'wow' me and be an obvious favourite. I'm sad to say that didn't happen. The Zeiss view was a little below my expectations, and the ATX was not as impressive as it might have been.

Obviously, there are massive caveats involved here: the fact that I was mainly looking at a gloomy London street on a grey January afternoon through a plate glass window! Hardly ideal, I know, but I think I got a good enough impression of how these two compare, side by side, physically and (to an extent) optically. The tripod could have been better, too. If I was bolder, I might have asked for the store assistants to set up a Gitzo Systematic Series 5, or something. As it turned out, I thanked them heartily for opening all their expensive boxes, and left the shop without a dent in my life savings.

If I had to pick one... I'd regret my choice, whatever it was. I know Swaro can do better, but I don't know why Zeiss' amazing constant FOV effect is not used by more top-end scopes (aside from the Meopta S2, without the same high AFOV number).

My search continues. Next on my list, I want to see the Leica APO Televid 82!
 
Last edited:
Very nice comparison. You could try harrods as they probably already have the scopes unboxed and ready for testing. Or leica store of course.
 
Very nice comparison. You could try harrods as they probably already have the scopes unboxed and ready for testing. Or leica store of course.
Thanks!

The guy I spoke to at the shop said that he used to work for Selfridges, and they used to have them all on demo there. I've not considered Harrods, though. Worth a shot. I know there's a Leica shop on the other side of town, so maybe I'll give them a call sometime.
 
The low zoom pics is why I sold my atx95, and got a Harpia (85).
That is an unbelievable difference in field of view. I couldn't use the Swarovski for anything moving. All my effort was to keep the bird(s) in the frame. I always wanted to zoom out more. Even counting flocks in flight was incredibly difficult. It just wasn't designed for my type of birding.

The Zeiss, I can concentrate on the bird more, or even watch it flying across the static view.
I find the mid range of the Zeiss most useful, so find the subject at wide fov, zoom halfway through. Seems get significantly closer, easy to keep focus, and still a decently wide fov.

The business of the curvy line on the street sign must be because of the shop window. If people were seeing that for real, we'd all be throwing our Harpias in the bin.
 
The business of the curvy line on the street sign must be because of the shop window.
Thanks for the note.

It was such a shame that I wasn’t able to test these scopes outside. What I saw as the darker and more distorted image of the Harpia was the major turn-off for me. But if thats just down to how that particular optical setup deals with light that has passed through this particular window (irrespective of how the Swaro coped with it), then I wouldn’t be too surprised.

Since you’ve been able to compare the two scopes, what’s your take on the Harpia’s brightness and edge distortion, compared to the ATX?
 
Thanks for the note.

It was such a shame that I wasn’t able to test these scopes outside. What I saw as the darker and more distorted image of the Harpia was the major turn-off for me. But if thats just down to how that particular optical setup deals with light that has passed through this particular window (irrespective of how the Swaro coped with it), then I wouldn’t be too surprised.

Since you’ve been able to compare the two scopes, what’s your take on the Harpia’s brightness and edge distortion, compared to the ATX?
So I never had them both side by side. I sold the atx and bought the Harpia.

The field of view I've mentioned, and that's important to me.

I did however, get the feeling the view thru Zeiss was "different" initially.
I noticed some aberration on birds against bright sky, and even had blackouts when scanning with it.
I think was just interim, as I can't remember experiencing the blackouts at all since the first couple of days.
The aberration may have happened with the atx in the same conditions.. seawatching southcoast almost "towards" the sun.

I'm not a very critical user of optics, so wouldn't necessarily notice any sub par performance at the edges etc. I struggle enough with the birds!
 
Does anybody know what the light transmission of an ATX is? Swavoski does not state that on their website. ATC is 88%, ATS 65 is 85% and ATC 80 is 86%. But what about the ATX? Why is it not mentioned on the site of Swarovski? I assume it is also somewhere around 88%.
 
Does anybody know what the light transmission of an ATX is? Swavoski does not state that on their website. ATC is 88%, ATS 65 is 85% and ATC 80 is 86%. But what about the ATX? Why is it not mentioned on the site of Swarovski? I assume it is also somewhere around 88%.
I've seen 86% for the ATX. Less glass in the ATC makes the transmission a bit higher I assume.
Transmission curves are flatter than competition as well for the Swaros.
So I wouldn't worry about that figure, the Swaros are all good.
Older scopes of various models could be well below 80%.

Gijs measured 86.5% for the ATC:


BTW, I almost wonder if he left the lens cap on when testing the Kowa 501.... :geek: 60-65% is not excellent...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the two.

I am in a similar boat. I recently purchased a Swarovski ATC, and I am eagerly waiting for the next generation of Leica spotting scopes. I am wanting something compact for backpacking, but I generally prefer the aesthetic of the Leica colour and contrast.

For your photos at 70x zoom, I think they might be labeled backwards based on the overall brightness and tone/saturation.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on the Leica APO.

Cheers,
Nick
 
Last edited:
The business of the curvy line on the street sign must be because of the shop window. If people were seeing that for real, we'd all be throwing our Harpias in the bin.
This type of distortion is very common in most optics, it's called pin cushion distortion and is used by the designers to minimise the rolling ball effect when panning - you can see a bit of it in the atx as well. Generally users prefer it as it makes panning much more comfortable and goes virtually unnoticed in the field, very few straight lines in nature.

Will
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the note.

It was such a shame that I wasn’t able to test these scopes outside. What I saw as the darker and more distorted image of the Harpia was the major turn-off for me. But if thats just down to how that particular optical setup deals with light that has passed through this particular window (irrespective of how the Swaro coped with it), then I wouldn’t be too surprised.

Since you’ve been able to compare the two scopes, what’s your take on the Harpia’s brightness and edge distortion, compared to the ATX?
Well said. Like testing a car in the showroom.
 
Thanks for the comments!

Although I'm still keen to get my hands on a Televid, my research so far has made me appreciate the balance of qualities provided by the Vortex Razor. I wouldn't want to eliminate the ATX or Harpia from future consideration, though, based on what I have seen so far. But I'm also going to try and get to know other scopes a little better, such as the larger Kowa models.

In the meantime, a recent purchase of a Nikon P1000 has slaked my thirst for higher magnification viewing!
 
Vespobuteo, post 8,
No there was no lens cap on the Kowa 501 we have investigated.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs, I know you can't test everything but given the interest in new Swaro ATC/ATX, it would have been nice to compare it with the other most mentioned competitors - Opticron MM4 and Kowa 553. Any chance that might be in the works?
Best
a
 
I finally had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between the Swarovski ATX 95 and the Zeiss Harpia 95.

After a few weeks of emails and phone calls, I found an optics store with staff who were kind enough to actually break the seals on four separate boxes worth nearly £7500 and put some kits together for me to try. I had to travel all the way to London from the coast to do it, but it was worth it!

The 95 options make a fair comparison, of course. My main plan of campaign is to check out some other scopes and modular options, including the ATX 115, BTX, Leica APO Televid, the big Kowas, Nikon Monarch, etc., including some of the extenders available for these scopes. But I think the two I selected here make a good place to start. I also didn't want to push my luck with the kind folk who were breaking all the seals on valuable stock on my behalf, so I was very happy to take what I could get.

These are only my subjective impressions, of course. I'll start with the physical objects themselves, and then give a (very superficial) overview of the optics... (spoiler alert: I didn't buy either of them).

View attachment 1491318

The first thing I noticed was how much larger they were than my Vortex Razor 85mm. Not surprising, of course. I originally selected the Razor for its compact size (its pretty dense for an 85mm), and I've been getting away with using this little Gitzo 1545T; but I would certainly need something a little sturdier if I was to move to 95mm.

Both the ATX and Harpia feel like big, serious scopes. The ATX has a chunky ocular section, whereas the Harpia is slender toward the eyepiece and has a completely different sense of scale and balance. This is more obviously apparent in these over-the-shoulder images; the camera placement is a little different between them, but the Harpia is still presenting a slighter and (to my eye) more appealing aspect to the user. The ATX eye piece is a little too big, for my tastes; the Harpia allows you to get close without having the sense of so much 'equipment' against your face, as it were!

View attachment 1491317

In terms of build quality, I thought they were rather similar. Like some others, I have been disappointed with Zeiss' rubbery aesthetic in recent models, and impressed by Swaro's more delicate machining. I have to say, both scopes were a little disappointing, physically. Neither of them 'wowed' me with their build quality, like (in bino world) the Leica Noctivid, or, in terms of overall ergonomics and physical aesthetics, the NL Pure. The rings and joins on both the ATX and the Harpia are a bit wide, and I can imagine dirt and mud getting into them quite easily. They also didn't seem that symmetrical. The Harpia was probably my preferred design and build of the two, overall. Its certainly somewhat nicer than their lower-end Gavia model, but - as one of the shop assistants pointed out - it still looks like "a big hunk of rubber".

View attachment 1491312

The focus wheels and zoom mechanisms are both fine, nothing more. I don't really like the design of any of the adjustment mechanisms on these scopes; they just look like dirt traps, to my eyes, and I feel as though I'd be cleaning them after every use. I don't have this feeling with the Razor because of the more subtle pattern on the grips.

I'm also not sold on having the zoom rings on the objective barrels, which is what both manufacturers have gone for with these models. But I guess that just reflects what I am used to. It's hard to say anything authoritative here, because with both these models being brand new, I assume that they will lose a significant amount of stiffness over time. There were slightly awkward to use, and probably for this reason. Straight out of the box, at least, the ATX was the easiest to focus.

View attachment 1491313

From a user's perspective (i.e., looking toward the eyepiece), the Zeiss was the most appealing. I think the ATX eyepiece is just too large to be comfortable, and I'm not a fan of the overall look of the scope in this setup. The Zeiss is better, but I was not falling in love with it, either; I think the front half is - shall I say it? - ugly?

These pics below show-off both scopes' impressive 95mm objectives, and the glass on display is very handsome. Both sunshades were stiff, but I think the ATX comes out a little bit further than the Harpia. Both seemed fine.

View attachment 1491319

Now to take a brief and inexpert look at the views these particular scopes provided that afternoon.

I wasn't able to do a star test, because I don't fully understand what I'd be looking for or what the results might mean, as yet, so please forgive that omission.

These first pics were taken at the lowest zoom for both scopes, and the major factors which are immediately apparent are 1) the massive AFOV on the Harpia; 2) the superior brightness of the Swaro; and 3) additional edge distortion on the Harpia compared to the ATX's flat field. That's not to mention the fact that the ATX is showing 30x and the Harpia is on 23x. For me, the fact that the Harpia was able to show this size of AFOV at 23x was phenomenal. But is it enough to compensate for the lack of flat edges and what seems to be a notable loss of brightness...?

View attachment 1491320

At max zoom, both scopes can reach an impressive 70x. The Swaro is still the brightest of the two, and the Harpia is showing some strange curvature effects; these are apparent around the black outlines of the sign. The Zeiss image is a little woozy and dark for my taste, here. I don't think many people would disagree when I say that the Swaro is the better view, here.

View attachment 1491342

I didn't buy either scope, and my search for an 'upgrade' continues. I was expecting, perhaps hoping, that one of these two scopes would 'wow' me and be an obvious favourite. I'm sad to say that didn't happen. The Zeiss view was a little below my expectations, and the ATX was not as impressive as it might have been.

Obviously, there are massive caveats involved here: the fact that I was mainly looking at a gloomy London street on a grey January afternoon through a plate glass window! Hardly ideal, I know, but I think I got a good enough impression of how these two compare, side by side, physically and (to an extent) optically. The tripod could have been better, too. If I was bolder, I might have asked for the store assistants to set up a Gitzo Systematic Series 5, or something. As it turned out, I thanked them heartily for opening all their expensive boxes, and left the shop without a dent in my life savings.

If I had to pick one... I'd regret my choice, whatever it was. I know Swaro can do better, but I don't know why Zeiss' amazing constant FOV effect is not used by more top-end scopes (aside from the Meopta S2, without the same high AFOV number).

My search continues. Next on my list, I want to see the Leica APO Televid 82!
Did you test the Leica scope yet?
 
Hi,

thanks for the nice review!

But I agree with Nick in post #10 that the 70x images seem mixed up. With the low mag images, the one with the colder, more bluish rendition of the white sign is on the left and labelled Swaro, while with the high mag images the colder white is on the right labelled Zeiss... which would make the slightly woozy image the Swaro one...

It would also be helpful if the images were not cropped so much - you were writing about additional edge distortion with the harpia on the low mag images but the edge is hardly visible for the harpia image...

Cheers,

Joachim
 
Hi,

thanks for the nice review!

But I agree with Nick in post #10 that the 70x images seem mixed up. With the low mag images, the one with the colder, more bluish rendition of the white sign is on the left and labelled Swaro, while with the high mag images the colder white is on the right labelled Zeiss... which would make the slightly woozy image the Swaro one...

It would also be helpful if the images were not cropped so much - you were writing about additional edge distortion with the harpia on the low mag images but the edge is hardly visible for the harpia image...

Cheers,

Joachim
Yes, it was nothing like an ideal test scenario. I really want to take them out into the countryside and do another comparison someday.
 
Not yet, unfortunately. The next time I visit London, I'll try to find one. I hear Harrods or Selfridges have them set up in store.
Based on my last visit to the Heart of The Empire, I can understand your reluctance!

My mother lives just outside and that’s close enough for me!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top