BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Dracon" data-source="post: 3314995" data-attributes="member: 14799">First, because I have the time, and second because I become somewhat bored when I have the time, and third because I have become intrigued with the Zeiss Dialyt 18x45x 65 MM spotting scope, I decided to test it against a spotting scope with an impeccable reputation, the Swarovski 65 MM HD with 20x60 zoom on both bird, animal, and terrestrial objects. The Dialyt cost me (new) $750 (a real bargain price) and my friend's HD over $2000. He had got his bull elk with a bow, and the rut was still on, so he loaned the HD to me for several weeks.  The rut had several weeks to go, the Canada geese, ducks, and Sand Hill cranes were still around and it was a good time to makes some comparisons before and after sunset and before and after sunrise, looking directly at the horizon.I expected the HD to be clearly superior in all aspects.  This was not true. Although both the HD and Dialyt were of the same length, the Dialyt was 3 ounces lighter (weighed on a postal scale).  The HD snapped into sharp focus faster, and the focus required less effort.  The HD focus does not require the longer reach of the Dialyt. The eyepiece comfort favored the HD slightly, but not much.I assumed the colors would be discernibly different.  They appeared to be very close, bright and vibrant.  The HD edges were sharper by a small amount and the HD's FOV was slightly wider. The HD contrast was a wee bit better but not its resolution.  The Dialyt could be tweaked to match its resolution.Regarding ruggedness, the Dialyt by design was built for inadvertent bumps and even drops, and its skin (covering)  is clearly superior.   The objective and ocular lens caps of the Dialyt are unique and highly protective when in place.But my primary comparison of interest was how did these spotting scopes handle what we call flair or glare?  And few situations equal the challenge of looking at an object close to a setting sun or rising sun and the reverse in the evening.So most of my viewing was done by placing the spotting scopes on tripods with the sun either beginning to rise or to set and looking at animals and birds, with elk and deer in deep shadows and waterfowl on lakes and grain fields.  This took some time to do the finding and maneuvering.I expected the HD to be clearly superior to the Dialyt in these situations, but other than on the edges, it was not.  But the Dialyt wasn't superior either. Both scopes seemed to be in a toss-up looking at birds and animals under these conditions. Working the zooms back and forth showed no real difference.  Of course another person might see some differences.If I were to be using a spotting scope under these conditions, i.e., tripod, sunny weather, low humidity, slight wind, (a reasonably controlled environment), and had to make a choice regardless of cost, the HD would be my choice - it is easier to use.  But if conditions were poor and inadvertent abuse was a potential factor, the Dialyt would be my choice.Others with a Dialyt might try to replicate what I did and share there findings with the forum.  There is no question the HD is a high quality spotting scope. The Dialyt isn't too shabby, either.John</blockquote>

Verification