Swarovski BTX - Dual eyes

[fatrascal]

In a true backpacking situation where I would bivvy out for several days I would never even consider packing it with me. As it is I only pack in my 65mm objective for the spotter and my 10 power bino's. And since I also have the 95mm objective lens for the spotter I definitely do not need the BTX. BUT, need and want are two different things and I WANT the BTX. I plan on retiring in about 13 years and this would be a great retirement toy. But by then there will be a new latest and greatest attachment and the BTX will be outdated. Swarovski, please stop! Your hurting my retirement funds, lol. fatrascal.

 

[3forks]

Jay Scott reviewed the BTX on his podcast.

I haven't listened to whole podcast, but the review of the BTX is favorable to say the least.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I will be looking through one next week. I will post up my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

I got to spend some time behind the BTX the last few days. I was most impressed with how bright the 65 is, and how big the depth of field/focus is. You never seem to have to refocus it.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I got to spend some time behind the BTX the last few days. I was most impressed with how bright the 65 is, and how big the depth of field/focus is. You never seem to have to refocus it.

Will you be packing one?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[jaxdialation]

Ok, a confession. I'm also an amateur astronomer. Binoviewers came out about 15 years ago in that market. Eyepieces are a big deal for visual astronomers. I have several that cost > $500. Binoviewers don't increase light capture, and in fact they introduce more prisms in the optical path. The net result is more opportunity for a loss of clarity with zero additional light capture. Yes, this is a bigger deal when your magnifying at 1500x vs 20x with a spotting scope. But I'd estimate less than 1% of astronomers I've ever met use binoviewers. The simple reason being they don't solve a specific problem.
I'd stay away from these scopes. Or wait until buyers remorse greats some steals on the used market


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

Ok, a confession. I'm also an amateur astronomer. Binoviewers came out about 15 years ago in that market. Eyepieces are a big deal for visual astronomers. I have several that cost > $500. Binoviewers don't increase light capture, and in fact they introduce more prisms in the optical path. The net result is more opportunity for a loss of clarity with zero additional light capture. Yes, this is a bigger deal when your magnifying at 1500x vs 20x with a spotting scope. But I'd estimate less than 1% of astronomers I've ever met use binoviewers. The simple reason being they don't solve a specific problem.
I'd stay away from these scopes. Or wait until buyers remorse greats some steals on the used market


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't look at stars and aliens.

The biggest advantage is the ability to stay on the glass for long periods of time.

I also see zero issues with clarity or light gathering abilities in a hunting application.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

Ok, a confession. I'm also an amateur astronomer. Binoviewers came out about 15 years ago in that market. Eyepieces are a big deal for visual astronomers. I have several that cost > $500. Binoviewers don't increase light capture, and in fact they introduce more prisms in the optical path. The net result is more opportunity for a loss of clarity with zero additional light capture. Yes, this is a bigger deal when your magnifying at 1500x vs 20x with a spotting scope. But I'd estimate less than 1% of astronomers I've ever met use binoviewers. The simple reason being they don't solve a specific problem.
I'd stay away from these scopes. Or wait until buyers remorse greats some steals on the used market


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would say they solve a very big problem. Ever tried to look through one eye for hours on end? Not pleasant

 

[WRO]

Ok, a confession. I'm also an amateur astronomer. Binoviewers came out about 15 years ago in that market. Eyepieces are a big deal for visual astronomers. I have several that cost > $500. Binoviewers don't increase light capture, and in fact they introduce more prisms in the optical path. The net result is more opportunity for a loss of clarity with zero additional light capture. Yes, this is a bigger deal when your magnifying at 1500x vs 20x with a spotting scope. But I'd estimate less than 1% of astronomers I've ever met use binoviewers. The simple reason being they don't solve a specific problem.
I'd stay away from these scopes. Or wait until buyers remorse greats some steals on the used market


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've been using the Kowas for a year, and got to use these for the first time a couple days ago. They are literally a game changer.

I'd disagree, they do solve a specific problem with regards to eye strain.

 

[307]

Nothing like jumping on a guy for offering his rather educated opinion (albeit from a different angle/application). I thought that's what the forum was for.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Nothing like jumping on a guy for offering his rather educated opinion (albeit from a different angle/application). I thought that's what the forum was for.

I didn't see anyone jumping on anyone.

We don't have to agree!

The BTX will help ME find more animals.

 

[bounds]

You still in Texas Ryan? Looks like the FTW Ranch/SAAM program. I've never gotten to go out there but have heard it's awesome.

 

[307]

Would it be fair to say that BTX is all about eye strain? Improving comfort?

At the cost of weight, $$$$$, and a slight reduction in optical performance vs a more traditional eyepiece???

 

[Matt Cashell]

Would it be fair to say that BTX is all about eye strain? Improving comfort?

At the cost of weight, $$$$$, and a slight reduction in optical performance vs a more traditional eyepiece???

Reduction in optical performance? There is no reason there has to be reduced performance, and saying so ignores the benefit in perceived resolution and brightness with stereoscopic vision.

To counter the astronomy claim, I would point out that most serious microscope users prefer binocular viewing.

A further benefit to a binocular eyepiece over a twin telescope like the Highlander (besides weight/bulk) is that collimation issues are reduced to irrelevancy.

Proof is in the field use, and those that have actually used the BTX are universally positive so far, including Ryan.

I am excited to try it myself.

 

[307]

Even though in theory, optical performance is reduced, in practical application, the binocular vision benefit outweighs the theoretical reduction in light gathering/clarity? I think that's what you are saying, correct? IOW, theory vs. practical application once you introduce a human into the scenario???

My impression is that a microscope is a bit of a different scenario, due to the ability to control the light on the target but it would be a very valid comparison in terms of comfort and time looking through glass. I see your point.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Even though in theory, optical performance is reduced, in practical application, the binocular vision benefit outweighs the theoretical reduction in light gathering/clarity? I think that's what you are saying, correct? IOW, theory vs. practical application once you introduce a human into the scenario???

My impression is that a microscope is a bit of a different scenario, due to the ability to control the light on the target but it would be a very valid comparison in terms of comfort and time looking through glass. I see your point.

I don't know where this reduction in "clarity" idea comes from in the previous post. Even theoretically speaking, I would speculate each eyepiece should be able to maintain higher levels of resolution than humans can resolve at these magnifications.

"Light gathering" is a marketing term that doesn't really describe what optics do. Light is transmitted by an optical system, not gathered or "captured." It is true that transmitted light needs to be split for the binocular eyepiece, but the exit pupil will have a much greater effect on perceived brightness, and the exit pupil size is maintained with a binocular eyepiece. Any theoretical loss of transmission should be more than made up for by stereoscopic vision. This seems confirmed by field reports of "surprisingly bright" viewing.

Go out at night and look around with one eye vs. two and see which appears brighter.

 

[brocksw]

I don't know where this reduction in "clarity" idea comes from in the previous post. Even theoretically speaking, I would speculate each eyepiece should be able to maintain higher levels of resolution than humans can resolve at these magnifications.

"Light gathering" is a marketing term that doesn't really describe what optics do. Light is transmitted by an optical system, not gathered or "captured." It is true that transmitted light needs to be split for the binocular eyepiece, but the exit pupil will have a much greater effect on perceived brightness, and the exit pupil size is maintained with a binocular eyepiece. Any theoretical loss of transmission should be more than made up for by stereoscopic vision. This seems confirmed by field reports of "surprisingly bright" viewing.

Go out at night and look around with one eye vs. two and see which appears brighter.

The BTX wouldn't really be stereoscopic vision as I understand it. With compound microscopes equipped with bino viewers, you are viewing the image through one objective lens, just like the BTX. The image presented to each eye through the binocular viewer eye piece is the same image in both eye pieces and it is flat, or a 2 dimensional mono image. It is no different than an image seen with a single eye piece.
Stereo microscopes are stereoscopic, in that the images are just that, images... Plural. 2 images, 2 sight paths, viewed at a slightly different angle to create a perceived 3 dimensional view of a single image. The BTX eye pieces are viewing the same image from the same single sight path, which is then split into two eye pieces for comfort.

As for reduction in optical performance, I have to agree with Matt on this one. There's nothing that says it has to be a reduction in any single property or combination of optical properties. If there are X number of lens elements in a single eye piece, then making 2 eye pieces doesn't necessarily add more to a sight path, it simply creates another sight path separate from the other, both viewing the same "mono" image. Both eye pieces can have the same X number of lens elements. Of course it could've needed more elements and gone the other direction too.

Reviews certainly seem positive overall, I'm excited to look through one!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

It is stereoscopic in that the viewer's brain is seeing two images, and combining them. The advantages are still present, even though the viewer is tricking their brain into thinking the images are different, when they are the same.

Many binoviewer users even notice a 3D effect, even though this entirely perception.

 

[brocksw]

It is stereoscopic in that the viewer's brain is seeing two images, and combining them. The advantages are still present, even though the viewer is tricking their brain into thinking the images are different, when they are the same.

Many binoviewer users even notice a 3D effect, even though this entirely perception.

So youre telling me that you get all the benefits of a stereoscopic instrument without any of the properties that make a stereoscopic instrument a stereoscopic instrument... Thats an interesting concept.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

So youre telling me that you get all the benefits of a stereoscopic instrument without any of the properties that make a stereoscopic instrument a stereoscopic instrument... Thats an interesting concept.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

That isn't what I said. What I said is the brain is still getting two images from two different eyes, so it gets the benefits of combining them, including higher perceived resolution and brightness.

The brain is "fooled" into thinking it is a stereoscopic instrument because the viewer IS viewing it stereoscopically.

The brain is still combining a left eye and right eye image, and those eye's individual recording of the image.

Edit to add:

I am not saying the benefits are equal to those of a true stereoscopic instrument.