John

30 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

No plastic in the Morpheus--it's aluminum. 

Per Baader: "

• Hard aluminium alloy with industrial quality UV-stabilized anodizing surrounds a set of 8 lenses with one ED- and two Lanthanum elements.

However, the 17.3mm Delos has a chromed brass lower barrel, and is a bit longer, and might possibly have more elements internally.

Nope.  I stand corrected--the element count is the same.  The 100g difference must be in the outer barrels mostly and perhaps the thickness of internal elements somewhat.

If the Morpheus body is made from the same stuff as the Baader Classic's then it's light and tough. Same factory perhaps ?

Thanks Michael. Definitely one to have a go for when some clear skies come along

Right on the Coma B / Canes V boundary so well placed after midnight.

5 minutes ago, Aston said:

I finally got a bunch of new Eyepieces, Meade HD-60 25/9/4.5mm. They have a twisting function, but are not "zoom" so i suspect this is focus. The manual doesn't say anything about it though. Should i use the focusing on the eye piece or on the focuser on the scope?

The twisting action on the eyepiece is adjusting the height of the eye cup. Folks who wear glasses when observing often need the eye cup in a lower position (closer to the top lens) while those who do not often get on better with the eye cup section twisted into a higher postion.

This is nothing to do with focusing which is done with the focuser on the scope. These eyepieces are fixed focal lengths so not zooms. The Meade HD 60's have a good reputation.

Posted in error.

5 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Celestron made a beautiful 127 Mak that was a joy to use, and SkyWatcher Mak's are great across the range. I suppose mix and matching scopes and mounts could provide pleadings results. As for Meade, I think they've always had a reputation for poor mechanics in their mounts. Celestron were better! However, Skywatcher are excellent too, and if all that was available was Skywatcher, there'd still be top class scopes for all tastes.

Celestron were even better again when Vixen used to make a lot of stuff for them 

Over the past week I've noticed the posting of telescope setups, which have been recently purchased but not used much, starting to build up on e.bay. Some of the pricing is a bit optimistic but I guess they are hoping that the low usage of the equipment plus the shortage of equipment available to buy new might help them to recoup much of their original investment.

If the gear was purchased during the 2nd half of 2020 the "mileage" might well be low - the weather has not been to co-operative

I've owned a few Meade scopes and other things over the years going back to the 1980's. I've never been blown away by anything of theirs that I've owned to be honest with you. They do the job but some have been a little lack lustre

I currently own just one Meade item - a 1.25 inch UHC type filter. Which is actually quite good for it's low cost.

12 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

I was actually going to go for a Meade LX65 6 inch. Basically a Mak version of the 6SE. That is until I found out that Meade has gone bust.

It would not surprise me if that Meade model was actually exactly the same as the Skywatcher 150 mak-cassegrain with some cosmetic differences under the Meade branding.

No chance of clear skies here at the moment but it was nice to read your report anyway

I have seen a couple of Uranus's moons with my 12 inch dob but they are pretty challenging from here. Neptune's brightest moon Triton is a little bit easier.

I think the UHC and O-III filters will have a positive effect on nebulae under bortle 6/7 skies but the difference will be seeing some hints of the target as opposed to perhaps nothing at all, rather than seeing a target at it's best.

I guess the question is, what is that worth to you ?

Saxon are made by Synta so the same as the Skywatcher, Celestron, and some of the Orion (USA) and Konus branded scopes. The Bintel is a GSO product so the same manufacturer as the Telescope Services, Zhumell (in the USA), Meade Lightbridge and Revelation dobs here in the UK. I think the Bresser dobs are made by them as well.

Both about the same in terms of optical quality.

If it has been in a smokey environment the optics may well need cleaning and also the electronics will need to be tested fully.

I would want to see it working (demonstrated by the seller) before I committed to buy it. I would also want to examine the optics carefully for dirt or smoke residues.

I bought one of those a few years back in perfect condition, complete and in full working order for £700.00

Frankly, unless you are confident that it is in fully working order and the optics can be cleaned I would be very wary indeed.

Sorry to sound negative but I think the seller is being highly optimistic with the pricing and I doubt that they know anything about the telescope.

Very much a case of "Caveat Emptor" here I feel

9 minutes ago, Spile said:

Hi Steve

In terms of choosing equipment, what I do is scour this forum for comments and also the Cloudy Nights forum and look for patterns. A bit like looking for constellations really. You will see certain recommendations keep coming up time and time again. I check out any negative comments but I am not afraid to purchase equipment on the basis of an occasional negative comment.

Using this method, I identified a telescope (Skywatcher 200P) and zoom eyepiece (Baader Hyperion Zoom IV and Barlow) and I am delighted with both.

That is just the approach that I've used over the years. It works !

Being patient pays off though. If I've regretted a decision it is usually one that was made in haste.

I currently have a couple of ED doublets (102mm and 120mm), a fluorite doublet (100mm) and a OK4 triplet (130mm) which is reputed to match the criteria for a "super apochromat".

Visually, the ED doublets only show false colour around the brightest objects and then only a small touch. The lunar limb is practically colour free with these. The fluorite doublet shows no false colour on anything that I can see, visually anyway, even Sirius. The OK4 triplet is the same as the fluorite doublet.

Compared to achromats of a similar specification it is remarkable how well a modern ED doublet can control false colour to my mind. Imagers would prefer triplets I'm sure because image capture will show up false colour that is not visible to the visual observer.

For me, it is the figure and polish of these objective lenses that is at least as important as their colour correction, particularly when it comes to maintaining excellent performance and high magnifications.

What target were you observing ?

I've done some measurements of my rig. The 2 inch visual back, right back to the end of the silver drawtube (red line below), has an optical length of 55mm. The 1.25 inch step down and adapter (green line below) has an optical length of 45mm. I use a 15mm T2 extension (blue line) on the 1.25 inch twist lock on the top of the diagonal prism to ensure my eyepiece barrels clear the prism face as well. Hope that helps a bit more.

50 minutes ago, icpn said:

Well since the RAS has been doing this since its beginning I am not sure why the AAS is trying to extend its tentackles over here. The BAA has also been working closely with professionals for the majority of its existence.

We have quite a few members who are USA / Canada based on this forum though so the AAS would be more relevant to them

A few questions just to clarify things:

Were you using just the 10mm eyepiece and no barlow lens ?

What were you trying to observe ?

Were you outside with the scope rather than inside looking though a window etc ?

Had the scope had some time to cool down to the outside temperature ?

The Heritage 130m should be able to deliver very sharp views at 65x and even twice that much, normally.

I use O-III, UHC and occasionallly H-b filters from my bortle 5 garden with my 12 inch dob. The H-b is of limited use but the UHC and especially the O-III's have quite an effect on the supernova remnants, planetary nebulae and many emission nebulae.

It's worth reading up on effective exit pupils to get the best from these filters because this can make quite a difference to the overall impact.

Get it right and the illustration below is not an exaggeration:

It is worth getting good quality filters though. The cheaper ones are noticeably less effective I've found to my cost in the past

Hi,

I have a Tak FC100-DL. I don't find that need the original long extension tube. I use the stock Tak 2 inch visual back plus the 1.25 inch Tak step down adapter into a Baader T2 Zeiss Prism diagonal (which may well have a similar light path length to the Tak prism). I find this arrangement allows all my eyepieces (Delos, Pentax XW's and a Nagler zoom) to come to focus with plenty of drawtube travel in hand both directions:

If the Baader click-lock and M72-68 adapter has a similar optical length to the Tak 2 inch visual back then you should be OK to use the Tak 1.25" step down adapter if you have it or alternatively something like a Tele Vue "Hi Hat" 1.25" adapter.

Great report Mike

Rubbish here - there are a few stars showing at last but it's too late to set up a scope !

Glad you had a good one though !

It is supposed to clear here at around 1:00 am for a couple of hours then cloud over again

If I'm still up I'll pop out with binoculars for a quick look if it does clear.

Hi,

I think the very best advice given on this forum to folks in your position is to get the great book "Making Every Photo Count" by Steve Richards:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

Apologies if you have already read this but it really is a great starting point for would be imagers

I can't help on the eye relief issue although I believe the Morpheus design generally comes closeer to delivering the full claimed eye relief than many other designs.

If you are planning to use them for binoviewing it's worth checking out if they will work for you. I notice someone selling a Morpheus 17.5 on UK AB&S who bought a pair with the same thing in mind but found difficulties:

https://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=169727

18 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

First time I've posted on this thread... This is my main eyepiece case, which is a deep Geoptik case as I prefer to have them stored vertically:

Top Row: Paracorr II, ES4.7 82, Burgess/TMB 8, Delite 18.2, Panoptic 24, XW 7.

Middle Row: Hyperion x2.25 Zoom, BCO 6, Celestron Ultima 12.5, ES 2x 1.25" Extender,  Delite 13, Delos 14, XW 10.

Bottom Row: WO Binoviewer with Panoptic 15 (x2), WO 1.25" diagonal (to swap with Baader prism), XW 20, XW 30 (with dioptrx).

Plus a lunar filter and UHC filter. A few more eyepieces stored elsewhere that get swapped in/out or used for grab and go.

Some of the eyepieces are being assessed against a few others I have with a few to swapping them out permanently... I still haven't had a chance to test the ES4.7 against a tele-extended XW10, but the Delite 13 is likely to go now, as the Delos 14 is favoured at that focal length (having already beaten the XW14 and Morpheus 14), and the Delite 18.2 is currently being tested against the Morpheus 17.5, but they are both really good in their own way... decisions, decisions🤔🤣

The binoviewer has just now been fitted (pretty much) permanently onto the Mak127 along with two Hyperion Zooms, as I am using this primarily for lunar and much prefer binoviewing for the moon now, so its space may get used for any additional eyepieces 👍

Nice selection of gear

Sounds like you have your own version of "eyepiece olympics" going on there. May the best ones win !

Actually they are all pretty good - I think it boils down to small things swaying the verdict at that level.