Swarovski ATC 56 ? ATS 65 ? Others ? (1 Viewer)

[jb b]

Following on the topic Swarovski ATS 65HD vs Leica APO 65 vs Kowa 773,
I go to you for your advice.

I currently have twin stabilized Canon 10x30.

I want to equip myself with a telescope. I usually do ornithology on foot or by bike.

My most important criteria are:
1. Excellent (or very good) optical quality.
2. Mobility for hiking or cycling (I don’t forget the tripod).
3. Satisfactory magnification.

You can’t put all of these things together. The first two are the most important.
I read the forum and tests on the Internet.

This is how I steer towards the ATC 17-40x 56. The compromise is the magnification, a bit accurate (x40).

The excellent ATX 65 and 85 are too heavy and out of my budget.

There is also the ATS 65 HD, in 25-50. It grows more but is heavier (400 g) compared to ATC. I think the ATC image is at least equal to the ATS 65 because some people say that the ATC image almost matches the ATX telescope.
This is how I excluded ATS to go to ATC (pre-order).
According to Herman (topic cited above), this is not so simple.

Have anyone tried both telescope ? Can ATC do as well as a bigger one by being lighter? Is there another brand to recommend ?
And last questions, those who use this scope (there are very good comments on the ATC topic) are they still satisfied?

I apologize for my bad English and thank you for your contributions.

 

[Hermann]

I want to equip myself with a telescope. I usually do ornithology on foot or by bike.

My most important criteria are:
1. Excellent (or very good) optical quality.
2. Mobility for hiking or cycling (I don’t forget the tripod).
3. Satisfactory magnification. <snip>

This is how I steer towards the ATC 17-40x 56. The compromise is the magnification, a bit accurate (x40).

This all makes perfect sense to me. For your purposes the ATC seems the perfect solution. And the magnification ... Well, on most days even 40x is too much because of heat haze and so on.

The excellent ATX 65 and 85 are too heavy and out of my budget.

Agreed. They're both somewhat overweight ... I wouldn't get either if I did most of my birding on foot or by bike.

There is also the ATS 65 HD, in 25-50. It grows more but is heavier (400 g) compared to ATC. I think the ATC image is at least equal to the ATS 65 because some people say that the ATC image almost matches the ATX telescope.

Well, first of all I don't think the ATX is optically better than the ATS. The ATX is more flexible because you can get a larger objective module for it, but optically I don't think the ATX is better.

The comparison between the ATS and the ATC is more tricky. Let me put it like this: If two scopes are equally good optically, the larger scope will have some advantage (higher resolution, larger exit pupil) simply due to its larger objective lens. However, does that make a difference in the field? Yes, sometimes, especially at higher magnifications.

But would that small advantage outweigh the higher weight and the greater length of the ATS? I don't think to. I've got three scopes: 50mm, 60mm and 82mm. When I go on longer hikes or when I use my bike I use the small 50mm. If I had to change my scopes (my Fieldscopes are getting old, and the zoom eyepiece isn't really suitable if you wear glasses), I'd probably get the ATC and a large scope, possibly an ATX85.

Have anyone tried both telescope ? Can ATC do as well as a bigger one by being lighter? Is there another brand to recommend ?
And last questions, those who use this scope (there are very good comments on the ATC topic) are they still satisfied?

If you want a small scope of high quality I don't think you've got much choice.

I apologize for my bad English and thank you for your contributions.

You're doing just fine!

Hermann

 

[Boogieshrew]

Consider the Opticron MM4. Either 50 or 60mm.
I use an MM4 60 with SDLv2 zoom and fixed eyepieces (mostly the SDL).
Fantastic scope, very lightweight and less expensive than the Swarovskis.

I haven't looked through an ATC so can't compare them directly but I don't find the MM4 lacking in any way.

 

[jb b]

Thank you very much Hermann and Boogieshrew for your help.
Boogieshrew, I was not interested in the Opticron brand. I wonder if it is very well known in France. The price quality ratio of the MM4 model seems excellent.

Hermann, I’m comforted by what you’re writing, I don’t think I made a bad choice with ATC. I thought the difference was real between an ATS 65 and an ATX 65, that’s not the case (the price difference is real though!).
It is clear that the laws of optics are unbeatable. The larger the diameter and the brighter the image, the less diffraction. I know that this is important in astrophotogaphy, I don’t know if it is felt in direct visual (diffraction).

I made the choice to lose a little bit of magnification and a little bit of brightness, so that the long view follows me and doesn’t just stay in the car.

Thanks again and see you soon.

 

[mbb]

I have the Opticron mm4 50 ED with a fixed wide angle eyepiece and the ATX 65.
Regarding size and weight, it is the combination with matching tripod and preferred carrying method that help make a real practical difference between the two. (Apart from the optical difference.)

The ATX is better optically (it’s not ’night and day’, but still noticeable), has impressive built quality, Swarovski service (also if bought second hand), and the larger objective is an advantage in many conditions (not only when it gets dark). A really impressive scope. (Not light for a 65mm nor cheap, but I unexpectedly got a great second hand deal, for a similar price I would have paid a second hand ATS, and just took the plunge.)

However, the mm4 is really great for its size, has great optics (not just ‘OK’, but really very good), is well built, and the much(!) lower price and compact, less heavy format makes it a winner when I go birding by bike: it fits (+/-) in my cycling bag, attached to my (folded) traveller tripod, while I need to carry my ATX on a heavier tripod using a scopac.
I do both, but it all depends on the type of cycling/birding trip. I do occasionally cycle with the ATX+scopac, but that is mainly when going to a place where I know I’ll stay for a bit longer for longer observation with the scope. The MM4 is a winner for longer cycling distances, or when less sure of ‘needing’ the scope.

Again, another context the smaller MM4 got chosen: We (with my partner and little kid) went on a long weekend a few weeks ago and I took only the MM4. I could take the MM4 along on some of our walks, sometimes even just laying the MM4 attached to the Gitzo traveller folded on the (sturdy) roof of the stroller (not possible with a larger scope and tripod…), at other times switching with carrying the kid on my shoulders (I was happy I hadn’t spent my energy on carrying the larger scope in between…), sometimes just carrying it in my hand etc.
I’m still looking for a handy(/quick) and safe kind of strap to better wear the mm4+(folded)compact tripod over my shoulder though.

It is really all about the type of birding trip etc.
I’m sure the ATC will be at least as good as the MM4 (except for its foot… ), probably better due to the larger objective and great zoom etc., but at a 4x the price or so. It would be hard for me to justify owing both the ATX and the ATC.
—>
Did you consider having a second hand 65 or 80mm ATS ànd a MM4 50mm for the same price as a new ATC?

 

[jb b]

Thank you very much mbb for this very interesting contribution.
I haven’t tried the opportunity. In France, there are relatively few proposals. And in this case, it is good to know the person to avoid unpleasant surprises.

You were lucky enough to get an ATX 65 for a used ATS 65!
The ideal would be 2 scope as you experience it!