Kind of, at least when you have enough with 17mm magnification, which the others don't have. At 25mm it is slightly less light gathering than the others at the same magnification but not by a whole lot. For me the size difference is a lot bigger in comparison. The ATX85 is a whole different story but then you get a beast to carry around. It's a tradeoff that's very dependable on what you value most and how you use the tool. There's not really a best scope for all and everywhere.
-
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.
New ATC/ STC 17-40x56 Telescope (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter John A Roberts
- Start date
Hermann
Well-known member
Attachments
Hermann
Well-known member
Birding is actually quite a cheap hobby, unless you "need" to buy the latest and the greatest all the time ... There are plenty of people here who do this. They usually frequent the Binoculars Forum though.
Two scopes - that actually makes a lot of sense. One of the big boys (80mm or more) for whenever you don't need to walk long distances or when you need high magnification and high resolution (much more important than the better low light performance of big scopes!). And a small scope for walking around or for hiking longer distances or in difficult terrain.
Hermann
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Or magnification might be a bit lower than the stated 17x, and rounded upwards in specs, as 16.5x makes a 3.39 mm exit pupil.
Hermann
Well-known member
I had the chance to have a quick look at an ATC today. No chance to get a feeling for the quality of the optics, the weather was just too horrible with driving rain.
However, a couple of observations: The tripod foot is a joke. It's too small. No matter what the ludicrous Swarovski marketing says, you really need a tripod (or at least a monopod) for the ATC, and a more substantial tripod foot would have been much better. If I were to use an ATC on a tripod and carry the scope on the tripod, I'd tether the scope to the tripod.
I also think the scope is too heavy for a "lightweight" scope. Let's face it, most people will use it as a lightweight alternative to their bigger scopes, and IMO it would have been better to keep the weight down more, for instance by using a physically smaller, lighter eyepiece. The eyepiece they used is almost a thick in diameter as the objective lens. Talk about a mismatch.
BTW, anyone here who can do a serious review including star testing and a comparison to some scopes of known quality?
Hermann
However, a couple of observations: The tripod foot is a joke. It's too small. No matter what the ludicrous Swarovski marketing says, you really need a tripod (or at least a monopod) for the ATC, and a more substantial tripod foot would have been much better. If I were to use an ATC on a tripod and carry the scope on the tripod, I'd tether the scope to the tripod.
I also think the scope is too heavy for a "lightweight" scope. Let's face it, most people will use it as a lightweight alternative to their bigger scopes, and IMO it would have been better to keep the weight down more, for instance by using a physically smaller, lighter eyepiece. The eyepiece they used is almost a thick in diameter as the objective lens. Talk about a mismatch.
BTW, anyone here who can do a serious review including star testing and a comparison to some scopes of known quality?
Hermann
- Have you tried the foot? If you tighten the mounting screw properly, is there any movement of the scope?
- If i understand correctly, the eyepiece is a carryover from the ATX series. Were you able to confirm the very good viewing characteristics (especially for eyeglass wearers) with the ATC?
Regards,
Antonius
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I use Arca feet (not the Swaro, but on 553, camera lens etc.) that have a metal stop against which you can tighten the Arca foot. Similar to this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/205333-REG/Wimberley_P_10_P10_Quick_Release_Plate.html
Zero movement ever. Of course it adds a little weight and bulk. I also like the 'handle' that it creates, as well as allowing better adjustment of COG over tripod.
Hermann
Well-known member
The foot is solid but round and small. Basically like the foot of many scopes of yesteryear like the venerable Kowa TS-1 or TS-2 or indeed the Zeiss Jena Asiola. If you tighten the screw properly, there won't be any movement. However, if you carry the scope mounted on the tripod there's a chance it will work loose. No problem, you've just to watch it. However, this could easily have been avoided.
Good viewing characteristics, no problem. State of the art, basically.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
I very much doubt this works with the Swarovski foot, unless you can persuade someone to make a plate specifically for the ATC.
Hermann
1 pair of binoculars, 1 scope and/or 1 camera if you like.
I bet if you restricted yourself to that, you wouldn't miss a single animal compared to this weird inventory that is like having a set of golf clubs, but only being able to carry one of each.
Hermann
Well-known member
Well, well. I did that for a great many years (Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 BGA, Kowa TS-1, later replaced by a Zeiss Jena Asiola 63/420) Nowadays I use two scopes. I'm not getting younger, and lugging a big scope with a big and heavy tripod in the mountains is a bit much. So it's two scopes, a big one for more stationary stuff and a small one for hiking. I never carry two binoculars or two scopes at the same time though ...
That would be, well, "strange". (BTW, I like your golf clubs analogy!)BTW, I'm sure I'd miss birds if I only used one scope. With only a small scope I'd miss for instance waders far out on a scrape simply because I wouldn't have enough magnification. And with only a big scope I'd miss birds on long hikes, for instance in the Alps, because I physically couldn't carry a big scope in such terrain.
Hermann
A camera is not an alternative to a scope and as a newish member your sarcasm is misplaced.
AFAIK Hermann's inventory is not the newest and and his remarks were definitely not a plea for complication or extravagance.
It appears you are criticizing something you have not understood.
John
You know I wasn't replying to Hermann?!
I replied to post #303 who is being led to believe that to be a birdwatcher he needs 2 scopes and 3 swarovskis...
That's nonsense.. he can live a full, rewarding, challenging, birding life seeing just about every European species with 1 pair of binoculars, and 1 scope.
I replied to post #303 who is being led to believe that to be a birdwatcher he needs 2 scopes and 3 swarovskis...
That's nonsense.. he can live a full, rewarding, challenging, birding life seeing just about every European species with 1 pair of binoculars, and 1 scope.
Well then , you have the option of quoting but it appeared to be directed at Hermann.
If RB has two scopes and three Swaro bins, that is his prerogative. It's not decadence or an environmental transgression!
Your first uninformed posts on the optics forum with unwarranted attacks on other members - shame!
John
I actually have 2 swaro bins and 1 little swaro scope. Of course that is more than sufficient. I know I would actually miss something by not having a big scope. However, I would need a better tripod and tripod head as well. I know I don't want to carry around with too much and too heavy stuff. That's why I chose for the light weight scope and tripod. I would certainly miss the birds far away and at dim light. But that is okay. It is all about compromises. I prefer birding while walking/hiking. Passerines and birds of pray, they get my most interest. So a good 10x32 is actually all I need. The 8x42 is for dim light and the little scope for the waders and stuff. I am very happy and enjoy birding even more since I have the views through the swaro's.
So please, let's share this nice hobby in stead of being too unfriendly to each other. I sometimes get that feeling on this forum. That we forget that we share the most beautiful hobby there is. 😀
So please, let's share this nice hobby in stead of being too unfriendly to each other. I sometimes get that feeling on this forum. That we forget that we share the most beautiful hobby there is. 😀
William Lewis
Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
It's true and it's not.
I like the sentiment though, seeing most things doesn't necessitate a wide selection of expensive optics and the thought of that is great for enhancing the hobbies appearance of accessibility, more birders means more interest in nature and likely more enthusiasm to protect it.
Having a couple of options though sometimes means you'll have the right one with you more often - or have one with you at all to help with the enjoyment and greater understanding of the natural world even on a small personal level.
Will
James Eaton
Trent Valley Crew
I've had the good fortune to use an ATC 56 for a few weeks now, and my observations are a little different. I use it it on the Gitzo GT1545T Traveller - the plate it comes with is fairly small. When scanning on a flat railing or wall, without the tripod, I've been pleasantly surprised at how rock steady it is, scanning at 17x is great, and going up to 25x for scanning has been fine. It's not something I plan to do regularly, but as the scope is in my camera bag anyway, I can if required. It's a great combination with the Gitzo, it's the same weight as my camera and lens I carry over my shoulder all day long.
It's certainly heavier and chunkier than the other <60mm alternatives but to put it bluntly, they are not want you want to be using to use on a regular basis due to the quality of the eyepiece - I was directly comparing it with the Kowa this morning, which has such a tiny, narrow eyepiece that's pretty uncomfortable for long scans - and this is where I see the biggest difference, this might well be aimed at the travelling birder, whereas the ATC for me is designed for everyday use. The ATC eyepiece however is big, wide and chunky, like a big boys scope, no big difference to using the 65 or 85 (I've had both for many years), it's a very comfortable mismatch with the objective. It doesn't feel like you're using a tiny scope when scanning, and scanning through shorebirds for an hour is no discomfort - scanning at x17 is also much more pleasant than x25, as a starting point. At x40 I found it razor sharp, and though ATX65/85 are excellent at x60, I so very, very rarely went beyond x40 anyway.
I thought it would be a scope I would use for travelling or hiking. However, during these weeks I've come to realise it's absolutely adequate for my everyday birding - though I don't go to gull roosts nor do long-distance seawatching, or anything as unsavoury as that anymore!
Quality vs size/weight comparison will mean I am most likely to use the ATC 56 the vast majority of the time now - it'll be interesting to see if I do decide to use my ATX65 on any particular occasion actually as the more I think about it, the more I doubt I will.
James
