John

I don't think the fixed focal length Hyperions are better than the zoom apart from their field of view and a bit more eye relief. In your F/5 200mm scope the fixed length Hyperions will show more astigmatism in the outer parts of the field of view than the zoom does as well.

The Morpheus may well be a step up though.

Star testing can provide some helpful information but for it to be really useful I think it needs to be done under good seeing conditions, with the scope fully cooled, at high magnifications, and with knowledge of how to interpret the results.

This seems a helpful piece:

https://popastro.com/documents/PA_jan-mar2009_p12-13_telescopetopics_startesting.pdf

As I suspect you are constrained in a similar way to many of us currently to observing at home, I would suggest concentrating for now on classes of deep sky objects that are least affected by light pollution such as globular and open clusters and the brighter planetary nebulae. Some of the brighter galaxies might also be available but many, and especially the face on ones, will be very hard to make anything of. Multiple stars and asterisms count as DSO's as well I think.

When travel becomes possible then you can seek out darker skies and expand your DSO repertoire.

6 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Hi John.

Did you use any type of filter to see the horse head? Is it another low mag target.

Baz

 

Here is my report of that Baz:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/304416-barnard-33-the-horsehead-nebula-at-last/

I would say that its more of a "right" magnification target to get an effective exit pupil that maxmimises the impact of the H-Beta filter (which is also a highly desireable tool for this task). Even when all these things and the observing conditions fall right I've found it probably the most challenging target that I've managed to see from home. It took me a few years to manage to see it as I've mentioned in the report.

If you really intend to stick to the moon and planets then the additional aperture might not make a lot of difference. The XT6 is an F/8 newtonian which is a really nice spec for a lunar and planetary scope.

If you were to branch out into a wider variety of targets then the additional aperture, especially of the 10 inch will prove beneficial - there is no substitute for additional light grasp when it comes to deep sky observing.

Once you have the eye cup in the correct position for you, the Delos eyepieces are easy and comfortable to use. Similarly the Pentax XW's.

The Nagler 5mm is an excellent eyepiece with a wider field of view than the Morpheus or the Delos but it's eye relief is just 12mm which some find tight.

My personal favourite moon eyepiece when using my 12 inch dobsonian is the 5mm Pentax XW. I would think that the 4.5mm Delos would be very similar. I used to have all the Nagler T6's including the 5mm and liked them but I liked the Pentax XW's even more, I was surprised to find. If I was buying today I would strongly consider the Morpheus 4.5mm as well.

Perhaps you need to give your 9mm Morpheus a bit more time ?

3 hours ago, R26 oldtimer said:

I've used to mount my 5" F/9.4 bresser on a TAL2M and it was rock steady, even at high powers. Good tracking too, with 180 teeth worm gear and synchronous motor. It should carry up to 20kgr without any problem. It is nice, vintage, simple and cheap when they do come up from time to time. The bresser is sold now but I still have the TAL mount...

P.S. This is getting a bit cliche but it really is built like a tank 💪

I've heard that the TAL2 eq is a very sturdy mount as well. I was on the look out for one a while back but nothing showed up. It's a classic I reckon

55 minutes ago, JOC said:

I won't hold my breath then.  I've used the astronomy tools in the SGL links to check out the view I could achieve and the 17mm seems a fair bet - I've often seen the enhanced photos of it and wondered if it was a 'visual' target.  It holds an interest purely as I like horses and would like to see the horsehead nebula if I could. 

I finally managed to spot it with my 12 inch scope a while back. No "horse head" shape I'm afraid - just the vaguest slightly darker "bite" out of another very faint strip of nebulosity.

25 minutes ago, JOC said:

Maybe I can try to find that too.  I don't know what other kit you've got, but if you can find it using purely visual astonomy with a 17.5mm I must have a combination with my 8" F6 that will provide similar 'magnification'.   I've also just found a zoom in on the ESA Hubble pages that show where it is.  I had heard it was part of Orion, but assumed that it was within the same nebula area as the trapezium, the ESA website shows that it is actually closer to the left hand belt star than that.

The Horsehead is just underneath Alnitak. And darn hard to see I might add !!!:

3 minutes ago, Dave1 said:

@johninderby . Thanks is that a Skylight 4" F15 or F13? I see you have the AZ100 on a Berlebach Uni 28 tripod? Whats the highest magnification you've gone? How long it the vibration dampening/settling time? 

@JeremyS thanks, that looks an impressive set up. 

@John thanks John, astrograph.net still list the T-Rex as available, but new it is way out of my price range, and as you say secondhand they are rare. John did you try the T Rex on your Berlebach Uni 28 tripod and ditto for the EQ6? I'm trying to figure out if it is indeed my mount ( which I suspect it is ) or the tripod. I have the same tripod as you. 

 

My Skylight 4" with 2" Baader prism diagonal, finderscope, and dew shield fitted weights 8.2 kg. Its the momentum arm I'm concerned about. 

 

My Berlebach Uni 28 is HEQ5 so the T-Rex will not fit unless I modify it as @johninderby has with his. The 2 inch steel tripod that came with the T-Rex is pretty tall and sturdy. Despite being listed by Astrograph the T-Rex went out of production with the passing of the gentleman who designed and built it in Japan. If you add up the cost of the AZ100 it comes to something similar to the T-Rex but it is also superb (having tried a couple of the early ones) and is actually available of course.

The T-Rex would do a fine job but they are as rare as hens teeth.

I used an early EQ6 with my 6 inc F/12 but that was a bit overwhelmed by it. It would have been OK with a 4 inch F/15 I would think though.

You certainly don't need a case full of Tele Vue, Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon etc eyepieces to get some fantastic views in astronomy

It does look much better but you can have a surprising amount of crud on your mirror without it making much difference to what you see.

12 minutes ago, merlin100 said:

Would it be fair to say that most of the larger manufacturer's branded Plossls come out of the same Chinese factory? For example, Meade, Celestron, Sky-Watcher, etc? 

Not all those brands but certainly some probably do come from the same manufacturer. Most stuff comes from China or Taiwan these days.

The plossls branded "Revelation" are decent quality for a low cost. They are made by a manufacturer called GSO which is based in Taiwan.

You will need to either use a shorter focal length eyepiece such as a 5mm or use a 2x barlow lens with the 10mm eyepiece which effectively makes it a 5mm.

The planets do tend to look small with telescopes though even when very high magnifications are used.

19 minutes ago, merlin100 said:

I'm getting information overload looking at all the different types of EP, at the moment.  I know that MA's are the bottom spec that you'd want to go for, then up to Plossls, (avoiding SR and H like the plague), but some of the manufacturer designations have confused the hell out of me! I get UWA=ultra wide angle, SP=super Plossls, etc, but some take the biscuit for a beginner like me.  I've read the EP Guide sticky on the forum, but I'm still confused as hell... 

I think unless you're an optical expert, many of the less well known manufacturer designations mean nothing.  I wish their was a key to what designation falls into what type and category (apart from those obvious examples I mention above).

Choosing eyepieces can be more confusing that choosing a telescope

There are a wide range of optical designs and then you have the manufacturers names for their ranges which don't tell you what optical design they use.

A term such as SWA or UWA refers to the characteristics of an eyepiece (ie: super wide angle and ultra wide angle) but there are no official designations of what those terms mean and a number of optical designs can deliver such views but with varying quality depending on the scope they are used with.

No wonder you get confused !

One safe way to go is to find out what others who have the scope you have use and what they think of them. The BST Starguiders have proved very popular on this forum and, having used them myself, they do work pretty well in a scope such as yours.

This piece by Robin Wilkey (a member here) is a pretty good overview if you have not read it already:

http://www.swindonstargazers.com/beginners/eyepieces.htm

IMHO, the gap between 6.5mm and 4.5mm would be too much. At shorter focal lengths I feel that having 1mm or even .5mm increments gives you the high power options you need to enable you to get the best from conditions and target.

My shorter focal lengths are:

8mm, 7mm, 6mm, 5mm, 4mm-2mm zoom. I often find that I'm using the zoom in .5mm increments to find the optimum high power for a set of conditions / target.

11 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Do you raise the eyecup sleeve of the Delos to view?  The ES-92 actually has slightly less usable eye relief than the Delos (17mm vs. 18mm).  If you don't raise the eyecup, it would view pretty much the same.

I use the eye cup of the Delos fully "up" and it seems just right for my preference of having the eyecup gently surrounding my eye with enough pressure to keep stray light off the eye lens of the eyepiece. With the ES 17 / 92 I find that the correct eye position (for me) avoiding blackouts and seeing the full field is a few mm above the top of the eyecup even with the eyecup folded up - not really how I like things. If ES had designed in a twist up eye cup with a few mm more travel than the one they currently use, things might be quite different.

I reckon these sorts of ergonomics will vary person to person though and will be affected by the shape of the observers face, depth of eye sockets, etc etc. My advice on the ES 92's is try before you buy if you can. Probably a good idea with any expensive eyepieces actually !

I have quite a lot of gear that I am intending to move on but I've put that on hold for now. It is feasible, I guess, but I just don't see it as any sort of priority at all right now. I'm not tempted to buy anything either.

Having tried the ES 92 12mm and 17mm (I still have the 17mm) I'm not as enthusiastic about them as others. They are really well corrected but their eye relief seems to be design to suit the glasses wearer more than the non-glasses wearer IMHO.

I have found my Ethos and Delos eyepieces quite a bit more comfortable to use. 

People vary with these things though. I'm glad that I tried the ES 92's to see what they were about.

35 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Have you had the chance to compare it to the 17mm ES-92?  I have the 17mm AT AF70 and Nagler T4, but prefer the ES-92.  I've wondered if it would be worth it to pick up a 17.5mm Morpheus for 1.25" usage.  The AT AF70 has noticeable of chromatic aberration and astigmatism in the outer 15% of the 70 degree field, so not really a viable options most of the time.  Is the Morpheus free of aberrations at least out to the last 5%?  The 14mm Morpheus has quite noticeable field curvature, astigmatism, and chromatic aberration in the out 10% of the field, but less than the 17mm AT AF70 and way less than the 13mm AT AF70.  Still, I like the Morpheus better than my 14mm Pentax XL because of the significantly wider field.

If the Morpheus 17.5 is like the ES 17 92 then I'll not be in such a hurry. I've not got on too well with the ES 92's (I had the 12 and still have the 17) because of their eye relief. Fine if you wear glasses when observing but as I don't, not so good for me.

I agree that the ES 92's are superbly corrected eyepieces though.

I'll stick with my Delos 17.3 in that niche I think.

Just now, Aljouri said:

No no not all of it obviously 

Well £200 could get you a set of 3-4 eyepieces or one very nice eyepiece.

Is that £200's and is that for all the eyepieces ?

49 minutes ago, Chaz2b said:

Thanks John, can I also take it that the 75 is newer than the 55?
 

chaz

Not a lot in it to be honest with you. There was a time when Meade ran both systems side by side. I think the LXD55 was introduced earlier than the 75 though.

Lovely set of eyepieces.

I really must try a Morpheus sometime