jetstream

48 minutes ago, Rob Sellent said:

Can't add to what others have already said but just to add voice to the discussion. If field of view and eye relief isn't a big concern, then for good quality planetary eyepieces, I've found Baader Genuine Orthos a good move. Indeed, the quality of image is as good as something like a Delos.

I have also used Tele Vue's Plossls and have found the quality of image as good as Tele Vue's more expensive glass. However, I find eye-relief with them more uncomfortable than with the Orthos and personally wouldn't recommend going less than 11mm. Like @alan potts, I have a couple of TV plossls in a box but haven't used them a great deal.

The Delos is the deepest, most contrasting widefield series out there IMHO- I stupidly sold mine...

1 hour ago, JTEC said:

11mm TV Plossl is an excellent eyepiece, as is the 8mm, if you’re not bothered about eye relief.  Observing Mars and Saturn with a 140mm apo and Baader MkV binoviewer from 8,000ft an experienced observing friend and I tested pairs of 11mm TV Plossls against 10mm Tak LEs and 9mm Tak orthos - OK some mag difference to be sure - and both of us gave the nod to the Plossls. Make of that what you will 🙂

The Tak LE I have, 12.5mm stays in the drawer all the time...no place in the cases for this one lol!

1 hour ago, John said:

The TV plossls have really good transmission IMHO. I saw some data a while back resulting from throughput tests and the TV plossls were a bit better even than orthos (both classic and top tier HDs).

 

 

I have 4 TV plossls-32's and 25's and are excellent. The 25mm is my goto HH eyepiece and holds a special place in the case showing me this object first. These sets of eyepieces are all I use in the binoviewers really, giving super lunar/planetary views in all my scopes.

Maybe I should try a short fl TV plossl on DSO...

2 hours ago, Piero said:

In an ideal world, I would love a Vixen HR 5mm, but it seems this cannot be made due to the inherent design of the HR line. 

So, options are:

- 11mm +/- 2.25x barlow

- 5mm and use the 24 Pan +/- 2.25x Barlow

Yeah.. a Pentax XO 5mm would be great! ... So would be the XO plus the 10mm ZAOII... Tough to find them and on the wallet though..

Yes, I'm in the same boat, but my copy of the 10mm BCO is VG, however I'd buy a 5mm Vixen HR immediately too. I use my scopes a lot and would have a hard time using a classic ZAOII so much and under my conditions. Can't imagine dropping one in the snow lol!

I wish someone would make ZAOII level orthos again.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I used to use an 11mm TV plossl for solar observing and always found it to be very sharp, not dissimilar to a BGO as I recall. It did get ousted by a Leica ASPH Zoom which was sharper on axis.

The Leica Asph is very sharp for sure, its too bad that the zooms (my 3 anyway) fall short in the transmission dept IMHO.

Is the TV plossl really a plossl? or is it a symmetric?

I ask because there might be a difference in spot size and technical performance.

Piero, have you considered the Zeiss ZAOII 10mm? for the level of performance you like this might be a needed step IMHO.

👎

my vote

54 minutes ago, Rodd said:

If my images are so good, why don't they get more likes and/or comments?

Your images are very good Rodd- some better than others just like everyone else's.

Hey, just a thought- do you belong to the "in crowd" here? Some get more responses (perhaps?) than others regardless of observational or image quality-well maybe I'm wrong.😀 probably am...

Just now, Adam J said:

Yes exactly as but for example I view it differently and am more impressed by the detail in the bubble in image 2. 

I see your perspective Adam and respect it for sure.

For me the first image isn;t just about the Bubble- Rodd nailed the area surrounding it with draping dust and those pillars... fantastic. My reference is for the whole image, not any single part of it, for me its the whole package and the razor sharpness and brightness of the Bubble itself than wins me over.

Just now, Rodd said:

You have managed to fill my bubble then pop it with a pin! 😄  Its great that you think so highly of the first image, but a bit disheartening to realize I wasted 27 hours on the second!!!  Which, of course, means I must spend another 27 in a second attempt!

Rodd

No man, they are both great images!

I look at images from the perspective of what "grabs" me and holds me- not technical perfection.

After you mentioned noise (I presume) I found some in the dust pillars- I enjoy imaging the Aurora and have very limited ability but did learn where noise etc can hide. The whole package of the first image is an attention grabber IMHO.

If the first image was in a magazine you would "win" I believe.

I look at these images more as art than technically perfect representations. You did not waste 27hrs- but you may have found out what pleases some people more than others. Mind you others may like the second one better!

Ok, I see what you mean, I think.

But..

As a non imager and just looking at the image presented here, non full resolution- it is fantastic. If I open up full res and at full mag I see some things. However, for most of us just looking at it, without trying to pick it apart- it is the winner, IMHO. Clearly.

Sometimes I think imagers forget most image viewers are not imagers! lol!

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

Did you look at the image at full resolution?  The oversharpening artifacts don't bother you?

Rodd

No, just the image presented here- I'll check it out.

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Which is the better image? 

The top image is stunning and for me wins hands down. My opinion does not diminish the second images excellence however- great work Rodd!

I would like to add my NELM, forgot to last night. I don't spend much time on this and usually use Ursa Minor- which is not near zenith- I must learn some new places to test for this.

A glance into the Little Dipper bowl reveal a flick of HIP 74818 which Simbad gives a V mag of 6.68.

I feel that it really will be a bit more and hopefully confirmed if I can find a source of stars in a constellation near zenith to use. I post this to reference my views, and can also say that the sky here gets better than this. Last nights level of darkness and trans will show tree shadows on my cars hood from the MW. It is also easy to see out there.

After using the 2499mm fl scope at f4.1 it appears to be very flexible in many regards. It seems that I can use large exit pupils without diminishing some DSO's views, in part because the focal length gives enough image size so there is no degraded views at low power. In the 15" some objects can become small enough to impair views at this level...

Up until now I thought the effect was due to the increase in exit pupil, but now believe object size (eyepiece) plays a role.

Blackwell etc al apply this effect to thresh hold objects- I think visual object size also has an effect in other circumstances. Just a thought...

I was just using the 30 ES 82 at f4.1 with great results, this gives about 7.3mm exit pupil. The Crescent neb showed really nice fine structure with it and a UHC or OIII. I observed no ill effects with it and it gave VG low power DSO views.

Under better skies tonight the fish on the platter was very distinct naked eye. After using the scope I sat in a lawn chair on the ridge and stared at the brightly structured Milky Way- boy was the huge spur into Cepheus showing well tonight as was the black hole above Caph in Cassiopeia.

As a side note NGC 7331 showed very large, perhaps the largest yet and Stephans Quintet really responded to the increase in elevation as well as some good transparency. The 3 main galaxies show as brightish lobes and big, quite a sight really and I was using the Docter 12.5mm/24" dob.

18 hours ago, Nyctimene said:

I'll try to get some medical/physiological information about the subject; never heard of it before

Thanks Stephan any info is appreciated to satisfy my curiousity on the subject. At 56 I see well in the dark and when younger my eyes were really good in the dark, being able to drive boats through remote lakes in the pitch black etc. Passengers used to wonder how I could do it- it was easy- I could see lol!

The eye Doctor said my blue eyes might have something to do with it and has an interest in astronomy.

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

Good excuse to buy some new drill bits

Yes, me too- all mine are standard, in 1/64's - a metric set will fill the gaps nicely.

3 hours ago, Littleguy80 said:

Excellent report! Thanks for sharing. The 41 Pan sounds like a good match for short refractors. 

The 41 Pan is most likely better than the 42 LVW IMHO.

On 17/09/2019 at 09:25, Nyctimene said:

I've assessed for my eyes 6.5 mm (left eye) and 6 mm (right eye) that way - very satisfying at age 66. It's astonishingly precise, when repeated

Stephan, have you been observing for a long time?

Curious, because as Stu says astronomy might help keep the pupils opening nice and wide. Interesting actually.

I just read the the Panoptic was designed for fast newts (newts in general) and for use with a Paracorr. There may be field curvature issues in some scope types ie fast refractors but not all seem to notice it.

I'm looking at the 27mm Pan for my 24" with a Paracorr II.

Obviously the 41mm Pan might be different as it seems this fl suits refractors and SCT's.

The TSA 120/Baader Zeiss 2" prism is superb, no detectable scatter using top eyepieces and with razor sharpness. No loss of DSO contrast.

However....this is a very well matched system, a good triplet APO at f7.5 that likes the prism.

In my other refractors the prism seems to have one small issue or another- false color in the SW120ED on Jupiter for example (almost able to focus out) or a loss of DSO performance in the 90mm SV triplet APO.

To the OP, if it were me I would get a good, low scatter mirror diagonal as they are less fussy IMHO.

excellent!