Swarovski binoculars ATC/STC anti-rotation (1 Viewer)

[MiddleRiver]

It is interesting to read that. I travel a lot for work, and have been wanting a travel telescope that I can just slip into a bag. My options (assuming I stay with Swarovski) appear to be (1) the STC, (2) the CTC 75, or (3) the CTS 85. I have not been able to try any of them so far. My concerns would be for the STC, the limited exit pupil and the probable need for a monopod, for the CTC, the weird eyepiece and how this would interact with glasses, and for the CTS, the bulk. It seems that there is not an obvious option which is clearly the best.

Have you considered the new Kowa 55? I have the 553 and it's awesome for fitting in sleek outer pocket of pack, and it's relatively light. I wear specs, and the ER is a bit tight so I'll probably try to sell it and move to the newer (but more expensive) 55. The image quality is superb on the Kowas ;-)

 

[Birdister]

Have you considered the new Kowa 55? I have the 553 and it's awesome for fitting in sleek outer pocket of pack, and it's relatively light. I wear specs, and the ER is a bit tight so I'll probably try to sell it and move to the newer (but more expensive) 55. The image quality is superb on the Kowas ;-)

I think the issue is that any small scope is going to suffer from the limitations of the STC. You only have so much light, and exit pupil, to play with. I also suspect that the STC is probably the best small scope there is at the moment, but it still has the DNA of a small scope.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I think the issue is that any small scope is going to suffer from the limitations of the STC. You only have so much light, and exit pupil, to play with. I also suspect that the STC is probably the best small scope there is at the moment, but it still has the DNA of a small scope.

I agree with limitations. My point was really that if shopping for scope within that criteria, the 55A is arguably the equal or better to the Swaro. Or at least worthy of consideration. But yes, compact scopes have optical limitations. I just can't begin to pack a 'big scope' (and required tripod) in my go-to daypack/camera pack.

 

[Birdister]

One thing that tips me toward the CTC / CTS is the case, which looks really smart. It would be really nice if Swarovski made something similar for the STC.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I think the issue is that any small scope is going to suffer from the limitations of the STC. You only have so much light, and exit pupil, to play with. I also suspect that the STC is probably the best small scope there is at the moment, but it still has the DNA of a small scope.

Yes a small scope has its limitations but in the case of the STC it's only one: the maximum magnification. The image quality is outstanding.

Combine this with the portability and the fact that it works with a monopod, then you have the optimum between size, weight and usability. The weight of my STC with monopod is half the weight of my former Swarovski ATS 65 HD with tripod and video head. That's a short Gitzo Traveller with a small video head, so it would be one-third of the weight of a more standard setup.

In fact, my larger Swarovski scope went with me only a few times a year. The STC is in my backpack every birding day (hiking or cycling).

This gives me a fully working 35x magnification with the monopod. When it's possible to stabilize the scope the 40x is usable too. My ATS was good until 45x (at most 50).

Yes, I lose 10x magnification but my scope fits in my daypack and I can carry it all-day, so it's always with me.

That's what the decision is all about.

There is no good or bad choice, if you park next to an observation hill, bring on the huge and heavy 110 mm