ATX/ATM Swaro Comparison.

fatrooster · Jun 30, 2013

For those of you interested in getting a new swarovski spotter and want to know the differences between the ATX and the ATM/ATS spotters then this will give you my personal analysis. The ATM's are not being made anymore but they are very similar to the ATS's so I'm using my ATM as if it were an ATS in this comparison. The ATS specification chart says that the body of the 65mm is 12.8 inches long. You gain an additional 3 inches in length when you add the 20x60 eyepiece and 3.3 inches if you use the 25x50 wide angle eyepiece.
The ATX 65mm body is 13.3 inches long but the ocular specification chart does not give a length. But when I put the two spotters side by side you can see that the ATX is shorter but has a thicker circumference. The ATX is sitting on top of the ATM.

fatrooster · Jun 30, 2013

Here is another picture comparison where you can see the difference in thickness of the two spotters with the ATX on the left and ATM on the right.

fatrooster · Jun 30, 2013

Weight. The body of the ATS 65mm weighs in at 39.9 ounces and the 20x60 eyepiece weighs 9.6 ounces and the 25x50 eyepiece weighs 10.4 ounces.
The objective lens body of the ATX 65 weighs on the spec chart at 55.9 ounces. I cannot tell if that includes the ocular lens or not but the ocular lens chart shows no weight so I suspect that the weiight of the 65 objective lens and the weight of the ocular lens were added together when listed on the 65 objective lens chart. When I hold the ATS scope with the 25x50 lens attached in one hand and the ATX ocular attached to the 65 objective in my other hand I can feel just a slight difference with the ATX being heavier.
Optically when set up out in my yard I cannot see a difference in performance in the middle of the day. But when I was at spotsmans warehouse a few months ago the salesman set up the two scopes and on an eyechart I could see a difference with the ATS being blurry around the edges but the ATX had no distortion around the edges.

fatrooster · Jun 30, 2013

Both are very nice scopes with the advantage of shorter length going to the ATX and the advantage of less weight going to the ATS/ATM. The ATX sports a magnesium construction while the ATS is made out of aluminum alloy. Hope this was helpful. fatrooster.

swivelhead · Jun 30, 2013

Thx, for the review. You interested in selling the 65mm atm?

fatrooster · Jun 30, 2013

swivelhead, its already spoken for but if it falls through you will be #2 in line and I will contact you if it goes that far. fatrooster.

SHEDYGAGA · Jul 1, 2013

Rooster, just be careful with that ATX.
I bought a 95mm ATX in March.
In May, I dropped it. It hit my patio from a distance of 2 - 2 1/2 feet.
Busted the living crap out of it.

Of course, Swarovski replaced it at no cost to me.
The entire process took a little over two weeks from the time I sent it to them until I got the new one back.

In case you are wondering what "Busted the living crap out of it" means, it means loose pieces rattling around inside, it means the objective and the ocular no longer go together and stay attached.

It also means that your heart sinks into the bottom of your shoes and stays there for a while.

But then, Swarovski makes your day when they send you a new one and say, "Now, be careful with this one." All is right in the world again.

I have pictures of my busted scope, I would post them, but they are too heart breaking to look at again.

I can tell you this, if you are into digiscoping, get that TLS APO for that ATX. That thing is AMAZING!

fatrooster · Jul 1, 2013

SHEDYGAGA, thanks for the heads up. I actually rolled a previous Swarovski scope down the mountain once and bent it out of round. But Swaro fixed it for free. The TLS APO is on the list but can't afford it right off the bat. Already have got a Nikon D-5000 to hook up to it. Hopefully I'll have it soon. In the mean time I will use the Tines Up camera and adapter set up. Looking forward to sharing pics on here in the future. Lets see some of yours. fatrooster.

SHEDYGAGA · Jul 3, 2013

LAST EDITED ON Jul-03-13 AT 12:32PM (MST)[p]ROOSTER, check your pms. I sent you one.

Please change your username.
I would prefer SEXY ROOSTER, or ROOSTER BLUE EYES.
Its just not polite to call you fat.

Also, I find that the most odd difference between the old style scopes and the new ones is the lack of the traditional eye piece.

You now have the objective module, and the ocular module.
But, if you look at the zoom ranges, they are not printed on the ocular, they are on the objective module.
The adjustments for the zoom are on the ocular, but the range of zoom is established on the objective.
It is a different concept for sure.

The same ocular module is used to obtain 25-60 X and 30-70 X magnifications.

Traditionally you replace the eye piece to get more, or less magnification.
On these new scopes, the same "eye piece" or ocular module can be used to accomplish higher magnification, or lower magnification.

This is simply because the focal length of the objective module is increased on the 95mm scope. The focal length on the 65mm and the 85mm is the same, thus the same 25-60 X magnification on these scopes.

That is one thing that the Kowa Prominar TSN 883 has going for it.
When comparing the Kowa to a Swarovski, the Kowa has an un-magnified focal length of 500mm the regular Swarovski ATS has an un-magnified focal length of 460mm.
Each scope set to a 20X magnification would not produce the same result. The Kowa will actually get you a closer look at a lower power.

Its always nice to be able to get closer and use lower magnification.

I think the jury is still out on these new scopes. Don't know if it will catch on, or if it will cause other manufacturers to follow.

jarheadhunter · Jul 3, 2013

I considered upgrading from my STS 65MM HD, but when I was comparing them I couldn't tell any diff between the two. At least not the $1000 + it would cost me to upgrade. It would be nice for being able to break it into two smaller pieces for packing though.

fatrooster · Jul 3, 2013

I know what you mean about not being able to see the difference jarhead. But I remember when I had my first non HD 80mm scope and I compared it to an HD 80mm scope. I did my comparison with the two scopes side by side in full daylight and kept comparing until it turned dark. I tried very hard to see a difference and give the HD the edge but I just could not see a difference. Several people said I would not be able to see it with my eyes but when digiscoping the HD would make a difference. So I took the plunge and got the HD scope in 65mm. The HD DID make a difference in my digiscoping and I'm glad I upgraded.
While I cannot see a difference between the ATX and ATM when side by side outside looking at shrubbery, I do feel that it will make a difference in edge to edge quality when digiscoping. So if your not a digiscoper then I would stick with your STS. If you are a digiscoper then I would suggest comparing them more before taking the plunge. fatrooster

SHEDYGAGA · Jul 3, 2013

Rooster, a pic I digiscoped tonight of a burrowing owl family.

fatrooster · Jul 3, 2013

No that is a very cool picture! I've seen burrowing owls only two times. The picture quality is great. Thanks shedy for the example, looks like magazine quality. What was your yardage? fatrooster.