RobertI

Now that Taurus is coming into view, I thought it would be a good little project to try and see the Merope nebula. My previous half-hearted attempts have revealed nothing conclusive, and when we’ve I think I’ve seen some nebulosity I realise that I am seeing the same thing with all bright stars. I’ve done a little research and looked at a couple of sketches (there aren’t many) and it seems like it can be seen in a small scope but only from a dark site. Some say a minimum of 10” and some say a 4” is fine. Filters won’t work as it is a reflection nebula, although there is some debate on that. So what’s the best way to see the nebula and how do you know you’ve seen it? Is it irregularly shaped or just a circular haze? What’s peoples’ experience? 

11 minutes ago, Westmoorland said:

He tersely stated he no longer works on scopes. 

Oh dear, sorry about that. 😟Mind you, I didn’t promise he would be polite!

Awesome. That must have been an experience - a 16” scope under a dark sky. 🙂 Did you see any colour in the triffid, is it even possible?

Nice session. Those 5” reflectors are under-rated as good grab and go instruments and sit really nicely on lightweight mounts. 👍

Well, I’ve just been out for another very quick view and I reviewed the edge of field aberration on the Morpheus - I was very surprised to find that the stars were sharp right to the very edge in all directions, and any lack of sharpness was resolved by adjusting focus. So I am now very confused as to why I saw V shaped stars yesterday. The only thing I can realistically think of is that I was sometimes holding one eyepiece while I tested the other, and perhaps heat generated caused an issue, but seems a bit of a stretch. But it’s good news, the eyepiece is even better and really does live up to its “sharp to the edges” claim. 👍

2 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Great report Robert and very balanced, I felt.

Also, helpful for newer observers and/or those who can't financially stretch to the cost of the Morpheus range, by reminding us that the venerable Hyperion range is much cheaper, yet can still deliver excellent, sharp views in the main central portion of the field.

Thanks for sharing.

Dave

Thanks Dave.  🙂

20 minutes ago, Louis D said:

V-shaped stars are generally related to lateral chromatic aberration where different colors focus at different distances from the center.  Try a really bright star and see if that V shape becomes a rainbow.  It could also be that all colors focus together, but the star image is distorted at the edge into a coma shaped image on either side of best focus and somewhat even at best focus.  Is that eyepiece coma?  I'm not sure what the proper term for it is.

Thanks Louis I will try that.

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Interesting.  I would have thought the 17.5mm Morpheus was astigmatism free at f/7.  My 14mm shows a bit at f/6, but the 9mm appears astigmatism free to the edge, just like my 10mm Delos.

Are you sure you weren't seeing defocused stars due to the field curvature of your refractor?  Make sure to refocus for the edge to see if it sharpens the stars out there into pinpoints.  If they switch between radial and tangential lines on either side of best focus at the edge instead of oblate circles, that truly is astigmatism.

Yes it was more like V shaped stars which changed shape when changing focus. It was only the very edges but I shall double and sketch if useful. 

It was a beautifully transparent night last night so had a chance for first light with my new Morpheus 17.5mm. As a comparison I used my Hyperion 21mm plus fine tuning ring, giving 17.6mm according to the Baader leaflet. Here are my initial findings.

First impressions

Basic stats:

• Morpheus weight = 306g, focal length = 17.5mm field, stop = 21.7mm
• Hyperion weight = 386g, focal length = 17.6mm, field stop =19.9mm

 The build quality is typical Baader – solid, black, simple and business-like. The Morpheus is lighter and slightly narrower than the Hyperion.

One thing I have always liked about Hyperion is the large eye lens but the Morpheus has an even bigger eye lens and it’s just a joy dipping your eye into it. The Morpheus eye lens appears completely flat whereas the Hyperion is concave. Coatings look very similar on both eyepieces.

Just holding the eyepieces to the sky, the AFOV in Morpheus is significantly bigger than the 68 degrees of the Hyperion. Some test results quoted in another thread indicated that the AFOV was tested to be 72 degrees, but I would be extremely surprised if this was the case in my version, definitely closer to 76 degrees (unless the Hyperion is significantly less than 68 degrees).

The luminous lettering is nice but does not stay bright for very long. Also it would actually be more useful if they had just printed the focal length multiple times around the circumference so that it was always visible when in the case.

Testing on the night sky

I had a chance to view some nice objects using both eyepieces in my 102ED F7 refractor, and do some testing on the following:

• Mars and the Crab Nebula - both were visible in same field of view, which was a nice surprise.
• M33 superbly bright tonight, wish I could have spent more time trying to identify its various details
• M38 and M36 open clusters
• General milky way scanning in Perseus
• Some bright stars

The general outcome was that the wider field of view significantly improved the viewing experience, and the Hyperion started to feel a bit restricted when switching between the two. The Morpheus was somehow more involving and although the Hyperion could detect the same faint stuff as the Morpheus, the star fields in the Morpheus somehow seemed slightly “brighter” (I can’t think of another way to describe it) – this could well be a trick of the wider FOV, or perhaps the transmission is slightly better, but either way it was nice.

I also did some ‘formal’ testing, albeit briefly:

• In the Hyperion, astigmatism became apparent earlier towards the edge of the FOV and there was a lot of blue colour when at edge. There was much less astigmatism in the Morpheus and virtually no colour at the edge.
•  Both showed similar levels of field curvature I would say (the Hyperion seemed to be much better at 17.7mm than it is at 21mm).
•  Faint stars and DSOs could be detected equally well in both.
•  No obvious sign of different tints between the eyepieces on brighter stars.
•  There was distortion when sweeping back and forth in both eyepieces but was not really noticeable without looking.
•  The on-axis views of brighter stars looked very tight and identical in both eyepieces

One interesting point to note is that the actual FOV of the Hyperion seemed identical to the Morpheus, but I also think there Hyperion was showing lower magnification than the Morpheus, so perhaps theoretical 17.6 mm of the Hyperion is not correct. Not quite sure what’s going on there.

Summary

I’m very pleased with my new Morpheus and I think it will be the first eyepiece I go to when I’m looking at DSOs. It’s a significant step up from the Hyperion in terms of field of view and edge of field aberrations resulting in a nicer overall viewing experience. I suspect the more I use the Morpheus the more impressed I will become, and the bigger the gap will seem. I should add though that the Hyperion is still a very good all round performer which is comfortable and easy to live with (they have been my main eyepieces for the the last ten years!), so is still an excellent buy at its price point. 

 Was the Morpheus worth the money and am I likely to buy another? Yes and Yes. 😊  

 Addendum: I've just seen the long Morpheus thread - I shall read this now!

If you need convincing about Steve’s credentials:

http://sctelescopes.com/sc-telescopes-broadhurst-clarkson-and-fuller-fullerscopes/

14 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Interesting analysis.

Don's final statement perhaps deserves some clarification, due to a different emphasis in "English" and "American" versions of the expression "quite good"..

In the UK we would describe an eyepiece as being "very good" or "really good"..in other words, an impressive performer:  however, our US friends would describe that same eyepiece as being "quite good".. a term that might leave Brits feeling underwhelmed as to its' performance..when, in fact, they really think the eyepiece is "very good"!

Hope that makes sense, but this link may help.

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-trickiest-word-in-american#comments

I first noticed this difference on the US astro site a few years ago..thinking at first how hard to please astronomers in the US must be!🤦😂

Dave

I didn’t know this Dave, very illuminating, thanks! Puts a different light on things.

Just received this rather nice 17.5mm Morpheus from FLO. Beautifully put together in a nice box with magnetic lid and lots of accessories that I will never use! Includes an interesting metal ‘tie clip’ type device which I think you attach to the pouch and allows you to determine the eyepiece size by feel… or something like that. The most expensive eyepiece I have bought and inevitably the start of a slippery slope. 😉Looking forward to first light. 
 

That’s quite an operation. Exciting times. 🙂

8 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Ernest Maratovich has tested the Morpheus eyepieces.

Yellow means the eyepiece is excellent and stacks up against the best eyepieces.

His results show:

Baader, Morpheus	4,5	78	4	5(10)	6(14)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +13%
Baader, Morpheus	6,5	79	4	10	10(16)	diffr.	diffr.	diffr.(?)	CA,Ast. +20%
Baader, Morpheus	9	78	5	11	8(14)	diffr.	diffr.(?)	6	Ast.,FC,CA +18%
Baader, Morpheus	12,5	78	5	12	16	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +14%
Baader, Morpheus	14	78	5	18	24	4	7	9	FC,Ast.,CA +17%
Baader, Morpheus	17.5	72	1.3	5.5	12				Ast.,Coma,CA

Column 1 is the focal length.

Column 2 is the measured apparent field

Column 3, 4, and 5 are the spot sizes in minutes at f/4 in center, middle, and edge

Column 6, 7, and 8 are the spot sizes at f/10  "Diffraction" means the spot size is smaller than the Airy disc at that f/ratio.

The last column mentions the main issues with the eyepiece.  They are listed in order of severity, but note that he doesn't mention how bad the issues are.  I think they're quite minimal.  The last figure there is distortion %.

10' would be considered essentially perfect.  At that level, the stars appear as, essentially, points.

The figures in parentheses are the actual spot size including fainter parts of the star image you won't see visually.  The figures outside the parentheses are the comparative figures for what your eye sees.

 

Two focal lengths are less sharp at f/4 but excellent at f/10.  I can also tell you they are excellent at f/5.75 with a coma corrector.

Nonetheless, they are still quite good at f/4 compared to other eyepieces.

 

 

 

Thanks Don, interesting to see the AFOV of the 17.5 is quite a bit less - I’ll have to measure this myself (once I’ve learned how to do it properly!). Also no indication of field curvature or distortion in the 17.5 - is that possible? Good to know they performed well. 

I can’t see your post as I think it’s white text on my white background - might be worth changing the text colour to black? 

1 hour ago, F15Rules said:

I see you've just ordered the Morpheus 17.5mm..it's a cracking eyepiece and I'd agree it's probably the best of the bunch (closely followed by the 9mm and 12.5mm IMO)..

Just something to consider that might also help you in terms of versatility: you have the Hyperion Zoom Barlow, which is also excellent. Using this at 2.25x with your new Morpheus 17.5mm would give you a really good 7.77mm medium-high power (c 91x in your F7 frac with Barlow and c 40x native)..

Also, I'd respectfully suggest that you don't need both 21mm and 24mm eyepieces as they seem too close to one another..so you could keep the 24mm and sell the 21mm, leaving the new Morph 17.5mm nicely bridging the gap between medium and long focal lengths.. if you feel you need something around 11-12mm, try the barlowed 24mm Hyperion, giving 10.66mm..if you like it, then I'd recommend the Morpheus 12.5 (or 9mm if you want more power)..the Morpheus 14mm is a nice ep, (it was the first one I bought), but it does have a bit of field curvature (less than the Pentax XW 14 that it replaced in my set, though)..so I personally would go for the Morpheus 12.5mm.. (and then the 10mm Hyperion might suddenly become surplus to requirements 😱😊..

So you could end up with:

5mm (could be sold if you liked the next option below)

5.55mm (barlowed Morpheus 12.5mm if you buy one)

7.7mm (barlowed Morpheus 17.5mm)

10mm Hyperion (could be sold if you liked the next option below)

10.6mm (barlowed Hyperion 24mm)

12.5mm Morpheus

17.5mm Morpheus 

24mm Hyperion

38mm wide angle

You could potentially recoup some of your Morpheus outlay by selling the 5mm, 10mm and 21mm units.

This would also cut down your number of fixed length EPs to 5, plus the Hyperion zoom plus its' 2.25x Barlow, to give you 9+ usefully varied magnifications (I wouldn't recommend barlowing the 38mm SWA as it's a 2" ep, and if barlowed would only give you similar magnification to your new Morpheus 17.5mm with reduced optical quality).

Note also that the Morpheus are all at least 76deg fov, a couple are a bit more..you WILL see the difference vs your Hyperions!

HTH..and Don't be Scared!😁👍

Dave

 

 

Thanks Dave for the considered analysis and excellent suggestions. I hadn’t thought about the Hyperion Barlow idea and that’s a really good way of getting the most out of my Morpheus. The addition of the 12.5mm is also a compelling proposition, when you look at the range I will get. The 21mm and 5mm are looking increasingly redundant. I’m sure I’ll love the Morpheus and I hoping it will rouse my interest in eyepieces. I shall of course post a full report. 🙂

18 hours ago, cajen2 said:

The 17.5mil Morph is said to be the crème de la crème. That would fit your EP range... 

18 hours ago, badhex said:

Plus one to that 🙂

6 hours ago, IB20 said:

The 17.5mm Morpheus is a beaut. Works amazingly well in my 3” frac & 200P. A certain +1.

2 hours ago, graham56 said:

plus one for me I've  got 2 for binoviewing

Your arguments for the Morpheus are strong, and I am weak……….I have just ordered one. 🙂   Apologies to OP for diverting thread.

18 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

If you like the Hyperion, you'd love a Morpheus! Wider FOV and better-corrected edge of field.

Yes I have heard very good things about the Morpheus. Perhaps I can convince myself I have a glaring gap in my collection. Currently I have 38mm (70 deg), 24, 21, 10 (all 68 deg) and 5mm (60 deg) plus a Hyperion zoom with 2.25 barlow. Most of my observing is done with the 102ED F7 and the C8 @ f6.3, all my lunar/planetary is done with my binoviewers, and doubles usually done with the zoom. So I guess anything new would be for deep sky. Perhaps a 14mm……

In a previous thread I jokingly mentioned that I don’t really like eyepieces and pondered whether there was something wrong with me.😆  I have a bit of a rag-tag, randomly selected, middle of the road collection of eyepieces, none of them excel, none of them fail epically. And the only time when I really start to become dissatisfied is when I start to try and assess how good they are! Perhaps I have a high tolerance for mediocrity or perhaps, as someone told me, “I just haven’t met the right eyepiece yet”! As far as my favourite eyepiece goes, in my very limited collection, it’s my 10mm Hyperion - 68 degrees seems just right and it works nicely in the 102ED. I have a Baader Mk4 Zoom but it never seems quite as good as the Fixed FL Hyperions, losing out on FOV on higher FLs and getting edge of field brightening at the lowest FL. I would love to experiment with a more expensive premium eyepiece, but I’m really scared. 😬

On the positive side I suppose it’s better to have to add extensions than to not have enough in focus, and not be able to focus at all! This is a problem I have with one of my scopes - the only solution is the take a hacksaw to the tube! 😉

I spent a total of five hours there, an hour of which was in a lecture, so somehow I managed to spend four hours walking, talking and looking. I do like to talk to the stall holders (why not take advantage of their knowledge!) so that absorbed a lot of time. To be honest I could have done with another hour or two to ‘tick off’ everything on my list. My only negative observation would be that there didn’t seem to be many stalls displaying accessories, but a minor niggle. So, was it worth the 7 hour drive there and back? Absolutely, without a doubt. I have precious little opportunity to look at new kit, talk to experts and mingle with like minded enthusiasts, so for me it was a treat. Kudos to all the guys at @FLO - your enthusiasm shone through and it was a pleasure to spend some time with you. 👍 

25 minutes ago, Chaz2b said:

I have a Celestron 100ed, a great scope with FPL53 glass, however, the focuser is a single speed rack and pinion type with a built in star finder slot. The r&p is good enough but I really wanted finer focusing, so set about “ upgrading “ to a better two speed crayford focuser as I want to enjoy better visual viewing.

The first part to get was the adapter from the USA, this screws into the tube and the focuser slides into the adapter to be retained by three screws.

After looking for a second hand focuser I started getting impatient so purchased a brand new focuser from Germany. This has now arrived and I have fitted it to the Celestron refractor.
Great! or so I thought. Turns out I have lost about three inches of back focus, that means if I wish to retain the new focuser on the refractor I need a tube extender to reach focus on some of my eyepieces…one step forward two steps back came to mind.

oh well, live and learn.

chaz

That’s a massively long focuser tube on the right! Do you do straight though viewing?

16 minutes ago, Franklin said:

If you're using a refractor or CAT, then a right-angled finder will be much more pleasant to use than a straight through version. Some prefer a RACI for a correct view, but I just use a right-angled finder which gives me the same view as I get through my scope with a diagonal. Straight through finders are for tube mounting on reflectors and I am amazed at how few right-angled finders are actually produced. Come on Takahashi/Vixen guys, we need right-angled finders!!!!

Yes, I’ve always thought that a much better place for a straight through finder on a refractor or SCT is at the objective end of the tube, not the eyepiece end. It’s always seemed strange to see long refractors supplied with a straight through finder right next to the eyepiece. I have found right angled finders have their disadvantages too, in that you also need a red dot finder to orient yourself, whereas straight through finder you don’t. 

Great results for a relatively  diminutive 80mm! Looking good. 

1 hour ago, Ratlet said:

Second TC-E2 teleconverter so I can make some 2x42 binos.

I did the same a while ago,  I took the cheap/lazy route and used epoxy resin and cable ties to connect them as they exactly matched my interpupillary distance. Works a treat.