Swarovski sales delays (1 Viewer)

[dipped]

In the UK Uttings are the only dealer I could find. I ordered them online to try out at home.
.

Thanks that's what I suspected.

 

[Peregrine Took]

That is either a wild exaggeration or completely false.

Neither. It is what my eyes tell me.

With a 3,5 mm Televue Nagler eyepiece at 130x magnification I measured a resolution of 1,78 arcseconds, which is diffraction limited and could not be equalled by a 60 mm scope.

I don't know what you're viewing at 130x magnification, but like I said, I offered an opinion to wolfbirder, based on viewing birds (with the manufacturer's own eyepieces) in various conditions. We've had the full gamut of weather/viewing conditions in the UK this week, so a good mix of real-world birdwatching conditions in which to form an opinion.

I came at this from a completely open-minded, unbiased, position: wanted to love the Swarovski, knocked out by the Kowa and surprised by the Nikon.

I can see that an owner of an ATS might not like what I wrote, but for everyone else, don't just take my word for it, this thread contains similar detail about third party EPs, star test etc:

Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten

I recently spent a pleasant few hours evaluating a scope that exceeded my expectations in nearly every way. The Nikon Monarch 82ED has been around for over 2 years now, but it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression in the market or been much reviewed or discussed in optics forums. A...

www.birdforum.net

.

 

[Tringa45]

Neither. It is what my eyes tell me.



I don't know what you're viewing at 130x magnification, but like I said, I offered an opinion to wolfbirder, based on viewing birds (with the manufacturer's own eyepieces) in various conditions. We've had the full gamut of weather/viewing conditions in the UK this week, so a good mix of real-world birdwatching conditions in which to form an opinion.

I came at this from a completely open-minded, unbiased, position: wanted to love the Swarovski, knocked out by the Kowa and surprised by the Nikon.

I can see that an owner of an ATS might not like what I wrote, but for everyone else, don't just take my word for it, this thread contains similar detail about third party EPs, star test etc:

Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten

I recently spent a pleasant few hours evaluating a scope that exceeded my expectations in nearly every way. The Nikon Monarch 82ED has been around for over 2 years now, but it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression in the market or been much reviewed or discussed in optics forums. A...

www.birdforum.net

.

Earlier this month you triple posted on three subforums requesting advice on scopes from three different manufacturers. The moderator moved it to the main scope forum and your post seemed to be lacking in background knowledge and experience.
You have now linked Henry's excellent test of the Monarch 82ED to support your claim that the 60ED is better than the Swarovski ATS 65.
Obviously you have failed to understand that the potential resolution of a scope is directly related to its objective diameter.
My tests at 130x with my ATM 65HD were on a backlit USAF 1951 glass slide at 23 m, in which I resolved 5,04 line pairs/mm for 1,78 arcseconds resolution.
That would not be possible with a 60 mm scope.
Your observations under varying conditions can only lead you to drawing false conclusions. Take a look at the video linked on post #175 of the Swarovski ATC/STC thread. The testers there have understood that objective comparisons can only be made under identical conditions using a test chart.
Their conclusions support many of those here, including my own, that the ATS 65 is an outstanding scope for its size.

John

 

[Peregrine Took]

Earlier this month you triple posted on three subforums requesting advice on scopes from three different manufacturers. The moderator moved it to the main scope forum and your post seemed to be lacking in background knowledge and experience.

You've gone to an awful lot of trouble, searching through previous posts, just to discredit the notion that a mere novice should have an opinion.

Let's keep this short. Two questions:

1) Regardless of the technicalities around whether it's possible for one to be as sharp as the other... (although they both seem about the same to me, but then I don't stare at charts, I watch birds)... how might you explain why I see more colour fringing in the ATS 65 than I do in the Monarch 60? Am I imagining it?

2) Have you even looked through a Nikon Monarch? I'm curious as to how you're able to offer an opinion on a scope you've not even looked through.
.

 

[Binastro]

The ATS 65 may be a poor sample, the Monarch 60ED a good example.

B.

 

[Tringa45]

You've gone to an awful lot of trouble, searching through previous posts, just to discredit the notion that a mere novice should have an opinion.

Let's keep this short. Two questions:

1) Regardless of the technicalities around whether it's possible for one to be as sharp as the other... (although they both seem about the same to me, but then I don't stare at charts, I watch birds)... how might you explain why I see more colour fringing in the ATS 65 than I do in the Monarch 60? Am I imagining it?

2) Have you even looked through a Nikon Monarch? I'm curious as to how you're able to offer an opinion on a scope you've not even looked through.
.

Firstly, I clicked the report button for the triple post, That's just a recipe for chaos.

1) In post #36 you asserted that the Nikon knocked spots off the ATS 65. Now you're saying they're about the same. I watch birds too but there are more suitable targets for assessing the qualities of optical instruments. The colour fringing you saw was very probably lateral CA at the field edge, which is caused by the eyepiece. It's possible that the 25-50x zoom on the ATS shows more lateral colour than the 30x W on my scope, which has very little.

2) No, I've never looked through a Nikon Monarch. It's just physically impossible for an excellent 60 mm scope to out-resolve an excellent 65 mm scope.
See: Dawes' limit - Wikipedia

John

 

[Peregrine Took]

1) In post #36 you asserted that the Nikon knocked spots off the ATS 65. Now you're saying they're about the same.

I never said anything about resolution - but when viewing real things, out in the field, any difference in resolution is imperceptible. What I actually said (and you can read my original post again) is that the Nikon knocks spots of the ATS in terms of colour fringing.

2) No, I've never looked through a Nikon Monarch.

The only reason I posted was to suggest that readers might try one, specifically as an alternative to the ATS. The link to Henry was to reinforce the view (from someone with far more expertise than me) that the Monarchs were scopes to match the ATS.

It's just physically impossible for an excellent 60 mm scope to out-resolve an excellent 65 mm scope.

I don't dispute the theory, but how about glass, coatings and correction of field curvature - do they not have an influence on resolution? Apocryphal question. No need to reply... I think we've both said enough.

.

 

[Tringa45]

I don't dispute the theory, but how about glass, coatings and correction of field curvature - do they not have an influence on resolution?

Is that a plea of ignorance? As a self-confessed novice, perhaps you should refrain from giving dubious advice to the OP, who has been a member here since 2005.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Is that a plea of ignorance? As a self-confessed novice, perhaps you should refrain from giving dubious advice to the OP, who has been a member here since 2005.

You're obviously very analytical, so how about adopting that approach to language? My only advice was that OP tries the Monarch. The rest was just opinion and an attempt to help; the fact that you took umbrage says more about you than it does about me.

In the same spirit as your PM saying that I'm ignored (wow, that really hurts ), I would ask that you ignore my posts and keep your anger to yourself.

.

 

[tenex]

John is not the only one growing irritated here.

What I actually said (and you can read my original post again) is that the Nikon knocks spots of the ATS in terms of colour fringing.

No... what you actually said was:

Of all the scopes I tested, I cannot emphasise enough that the new Nikon Monarch 60ED-A knocks spots off the Swarovski ATS 65. In terms of false colour the Nikon is almost perfect and its flat field of view is sharp from edge to edge.

Speaking of sharpness in the same breath naturally raised the issue John responded to. So how about adopting a more careful approach to language yourself? You could have avoided this spat right there. Or you could now have said "What I actually meant is..." and resolved it, if you wanted to, as you apparently don't. Or you could have paid attention at any point to the fact that different eyepieces are also a factor, as is sample variation (as Binastro pointed out). The "I just know what my eyes tell me" approach has worked poorly for others before, as it is for you now.

 

[Peregrine Took]

John is not the only one growing irritated here.

No... what you actually said was:

Another one that could benefit from anger management.

You quoted me correctly and even made bold the bit that didn't mention resolution.

Maybe I should have separated the second sentence that you quoted, but I thought that the first five words of the second sentence emphasised where I thought the difference lay. You both seem eager to fail to understand, so let me re-phrase it:

• The Nikon knocks spots off the Swarovski for false colour.
• The Nikon has a flat field and is sharp from edge to edge.

Read all my posts and tell me where I actually said that the Swarovski was not sharp from edge to edge. All through my posts I was only ever arguing that it has more colour fringing than the Nikon. Notwithstanding the semantics, I doubt if Tringa45 would have been satisfied with any such clarification....

You could have avoided this spat right there.

... and to illustrate the point, Tringa45 might also have avoided the spat if he had suggested the difference might be in the eyepieces. Instead, he went immediately on the attack and said that my comments were: "... a wild exaggeration or completely false".

The "I just know what my eyes tell me" approach has worked poorly for others before, as it is for you now.

So you're also telling me that I am imagining what I actually see? That, because you can prove the physics on a chart in your bedroom, what I see is a wild exaggeration and completely false. The arrogance is breathtaking.

It feels like you and Tringa45 are offended by the very idea that the ATS isn't that great a scope (especially at the price) and that a mere novice can have an opinion that differs from yours.

I came here to suggest to OP (not you or TriggerHappy45) that he needn't feel disappointed to have missed out. The little blue thumbs-up (below) suggests the effort was appreciated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screen grab from #36

 

[Peregrine Took]

PS. Tenex. Can I suggest that both you and Tringa45 respond a little less aggressively when you read things you don't like?

In my first post, I was quite open about what my interests, experience and credentials were, so that people could take my comments or leave them. I didn't expect to get flamed for it.

It takes all sorts to make a forum - I enjoy the posts of beginners who might be on a similar path as me, as much as I learn from the more experienced. I've got thicker skin - and will always defend myself against a bully - but there's a danger that if you ridicule people for passing on experiential, rather than technical knowledge, you put them off entirely.

Thank you.
.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Is that a plea of ignorance? As a self-confessed novice, perhaps you should refrain from giving dubious advice to the OP, who has been a member here since 2005.

Out of order, he merely gave his opinion and explained clearly that it was simply based on how he sees things. Nobody needs to refrain from giving their opinion on this forum.

If you have a different opinion/experience with any particular optic, also welcome to add that.

 

[Dyrlege]

Reading through this thread has increased my understanding of how wars start.😎

 

[Tringa45]

Out of order, he merely gave his opinion and explained clearly that it was simply based on how he sees things. Nobody needs to refrain from giving their opinion on this forum.

Freedom of speech at any cost? I don't participate in the social media, but hasn't there been an excess of hate mail, fake news and conspiracy theories there recently?
Just to take an arbitrary example of two regular contributors (HL & JR) with an extensive understanding of optics, I see that they have together participated less in the past few days than a certain member on this thread alone, and his posts have been a collection of self-contradictory nonsense and naive speculation.
Anyone can be forgiven for false assumtions, but persistance in false assumptions is trolling and detrimental to the forum.

John

PS:- A PM to this member provoked a vulgar reply.

 

[Peregrine Took]

PS:- A PM to this member provoked a vulgar reply.

You fail to mention that this was in response to two abusive PMs, in an unsolicited dialogue initiated by you. Remember? The ones where you accused me of, quote: 'ignorance', 'trolling' and 'stupidity'. After that, did you expect a Christmas card?

.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Freedom of speech at any cost? I don't participate in the social media, but hasn't there been an excess of hate mail, fake news and conspiracy theories there recently?
Just to take an arbitrary example of two regular contributors (HL & JR) with an extensive understanding of optics, I see that they have together participated less in the past few days than a certain member on this thread alone, and his posts have been a collection of self-contradictory nonsense and naive speculation.
Anyone can be forgiven for false assumtions, but persistance in false assumptions is trolling and detrimental to the forum.

John

PS:- A PM to this member provoked a vulgar reply.

Gee, a member posts an opinion on some optics, honestly saying it was just "according to what my eyes tell me" and you are now talking about hate speech, fake news and conspiracy theories 😅

Terming his posts nonsense and of naive speculation is also out of order. Freedom of speech, don't know where you got that from, but freedom to post opinions on Birdforum is an absolute if I understand anything about the purpose of the forum. That you don't like his opinion is irrelevant. His opinion seems a whole lot nicer than your unprovoked attack on him.

 

[Troubador]

In view of the bad-tempered exchanges taking place here, this thread is now frozen.

Lee
MODERATOR