F15Rules

53 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Think I will stick with my Zeiss BVs

Difficult decision then..??😁

7 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I wondered the same. Some nice Tak stuff including an FOA60. 
I like the look of the binoviewers but Denis from Croatia review was not encouraging. More of a Tak collector’s item.

My thoughts exactly..there was another Twin View Starbase on the Bay a couple of months ago and it was a bit cheaper, so I was intrigued by it..

..but the few reviews of it that I could find mentioned a lot of ghosting on moon and planets as I recall, which put me off..

And the statement that Takahashi only made these for one year perhaps tells its own story..🤔

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

1 minute ago, JeremyS said:

No handles though 😳

There was, but I got in quick and snapped it up for £300!😋😂

4 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Looks like they are selling some other nice kit. I just picked up a Tak finder Illuminator 

Yeah, I did wonder if it's a job lot from a once complete outfit that's being broken up for individual sale? The original FS128 would almost certainly have had an included 7x50 Tak finder, for example...

Dave

42 minutes ago, jock1958 said:

Looks in fairly good nik Dave, wonder about that dew spot that’s mentioned 🤔

Hi Iain,

I think it's a nice example, not mint or excellent but the seller (whom I think, but don't know for sure, used to own Peak2Valley instruments), has only claimed it as being in "fair" condition..

I don't think the "dew spot" is a deal breaker, but hard to be sure without a physical inspection..

I personally think it's a bit on the high side price wise, but he invites offers so probably room for some negotiation..

Dave

Just in case anyone might be interested, I noticed there is one of these for sale on fleabay just listed today..

Nothing to do with me, and mine isn't going anywhere, just interested as they don't come up very often..I know, because I waited for 3 years for one to come up!🥴😂

Dave

37 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Think they were taken with his Box Brownie 

The very same!!

Launched in 1900 by Kodak, when Jeremy was just 10 years old!😋😊..

41 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

What a strange topic, a time warp and no pictures to support it 😀

Alan

Can't have that, Alan..

Here you go..😊👍..and a link to the original first light thread on this..

Dave

16 minutes ago, Rob said:

Nice Dave!. What a find. Looks super quality, and will serve you I'm sure.. Sorry to hear about your back - Get well soon. Rob

Thanks Rob..although I should point out that this thread was one I started 12 years ago..😱😁

Jeremy (who clearly has too much time on his hands!😂) somehow found it, then saw the reference to "the handle"..and jumped on it🤦😂..

The Lomo was a fine scope  (it actually turned out to be a "Ylena"), and for the umpteenth time in my life "I wish I hadn't sold it"...

I did learn my lesson when I got my Tak FS128 though..it ain't going anywhere!!👍😊

Dave

9 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Aha, I can see the appeal, Dave

Clearly I had a deep down subliminal attraction to handles even back then, Jeremy 😎😋😂

Dave

On 16/10/2022 at 22:10, Louis D said:

Looks like a slightly bigger version of my Astro-Tech 72ED.  I use mine for all of my indoor eyepiece testing, so you've probably already seen plenty of those images. 😁

Even with my new Planetary II 2.5mm eyepiece, red/green fringing on the planets was very muted.  I was able to discern low contrast details, and high contrast images like the moon and Saturn's rings looked fantastic and color free.

Since your scope will be faster and larger in aperture, the color correction will be slightly worse.  I would hope the lens figure is just as spot on as mine is.

I like Astro Tech gear but they aren't common over here in the UK..

I have a very nice 2" Dielectric Diagonal which I bought from someone in France a few years back, and it's very sharp.

Are Astro Tech just a reseller, or a marketing arm of a company like Long Perng?

Dave

1 hour ago, markse68 said:

It’s a real mix 😊 I have celestron 30, 18, 7.5, 5, Meade 26 (v.nice), a Masuyama 20 (with fogged cement), a Parks and a Baader (can’t remember which but 20 and 15), and a Lichtenknecher Optics (!) rebadged Eudiascopic 3.8 (with the built in barlow)

The eye relief on the 5 is tight but it’s very nice. Not so keen on the 3.8 but it may be just the extra magnification making it seem less sharp and dim. 

The 30 is nice but I have an issue with longer fl eps and suffer coma/astigmatism in my f5 scope so use the 26 more

Mark

PS i took the 7.5 apart last night as it looked like it needed a clean- turned out to be blotchy coatings i guess from the factory. I was surprised to find it’s not just a symmetrical plossl type with an extra lens sandwiched between the doublets- the doublets are different. The one at the field end is concave towards the field whereas the eye lens is plano towards the eye. 

I had a lovely set of Parks Gold Pseudo Masuyamas a few years ago..one of those sets I wished I had kept..I had all except the 5mm (much too short eye relief for me), and the 35mm. I bought 6 as a set and the 3.8mm with Smyth lens separately.

Very nice eyepieces and all with no undercuts.

Dave

I just sold a pair of mint 25mm 3000s a couple of weeks ago. 

The 3000 series are IMHO little gems..the 25mm and 16mm were for me the pick of the bunch, and one of the few Meade branded ep ranges I ever really liked (the UWA 8.8 and 14mm being another).

I only sold mine as I had too many pairs for binoviewing, and I tend to use higher magnifications for that. But they are lovely, very sharp, good transmission eyepieces. Made in Japan, heavy chromed brass barrels and no undercuts. I had a 32mm TV plossl which I compared to a Meade 3000 25mm some years ago and could see no visible difference other than that from the different focal length. 

I didn't like the 6.7mm so much but then again I don't like any plossl below c 10mm focal length due to the tight eye relief.

Buy with confidence 🙂.

Dave

PS..all the Meade 3000s I've ever owned were Japan made and had the rubber around the body as shown above.

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

As long as I could get one in TV colours 🤔

 

Nah!!!

This is what you want Jeremy, got a nice handle with it...

...and the right colour, too👍

Dave

On 13/10/2022 at 15:17, JeremyS said:

Sore point. My lawnmower went in for repairs 4 weeks ago. I just called them again and it’s still not done 👎🏻

Maybe get a new one?

Only 10% of the cost of a TV Apollo 11 ep..and they'd probably throw in an extra handle for it too!😁😁

Dave

£65??

..you could buy a half decent new eyepiece or very nice used one for that.. - and save a few trees to boot!

Dave

9 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

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

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

8 hours ago, TheThing said:

Think there might be something wrong with my app cos it's showing wall to wall cloud for the next week! 🥴

On the contrary, I start to worry when my app shows clear skies in the evening!🥴😂.

Joking apart, I have found the Met Office weather app to be the most reliable..many of the online "weather apps" are junk, and completely unreliable..especially when they claim to be able to give you an accurate forecast for 14 days ahead!

My son in law works for the Met Office, so I know how seriously they take their forecasting..at a local level, despite all the technology of today, it's still remarkably difficult to forecast accurately local conditions for more than a day or two ahead.

If you don't already use an app, try it it, it's free and easy to use..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Duk.gov.metoffice.weather.android%26hl%3Den_US%26gl%3DUS%26referrer%3Dutm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Dmet%2Boffice%2Buk%2Bweather%2Bapp%26pcampaignid%3DAPPU_1_-P5OY5b9Gd__7_UPi_mLkA4&ved=2ahUKEwiW2aiQwur6AhXf_7sIHYv8AuIQ5YQBegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw098HrUZQWqSYedj6QdnkUj

Dave

On 16/10/2022 at 22:27, RobertI said:

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……

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

46 minutes ago, Whirlwind said:

Just my thoughts.

..and some good common sense and constructive ideas too👍

Dave

28 minutes ago, icpn said:

I think as one of the vendors there I can say that the turnout was very poor. Friday was almost dead, certainly the afternoon. Saturday was better but  the number of vendors was down and the turnout from people attending was well down on previous years which was disappointing given the three year break. Whether this is due to the economic situation or the lingering issues with Covid I don't know. Certainly given this I doubt we would attend next year if it occurs. At least compared to PAS which was entirely an imaging event there was a wider range of kit to see.

It's a shame you didn't find the show worthwhile..I couldn't get there this time but I didn't actually know it was on until I saw it mentioned on SGL..surely it could be better advertised?

Also, I think 3 days just seems too long for what is a fairly niche hobby area..better to spread the exhibition and talks over say a day and a half, with some exhibition/talk activity also overlapping into the evening?🤔

And I'm sure the current mess our economy is in (and heading for more of by the looks of it!) didn't help!🥴

Dave

12 hours ago, Paz said:

I was at the show today and saw the presentations by Michael Morris and Nial Tavir, and both were excellent and well worth attending. I agree the stalls/stands exhibition has got smaller over the years but it's the only astronomy thing I ever get to go to, and I did have a good look at lots of nice kit, my favourite being the Takahashi stand in the RVO room.

I managed not to buy anything this year which is a first, well done me... but then I got home and accidentally found a second hand copy of Charles Wood's (out of print) "The Moon A Personal View" on Ebay and went for it - I blame this lapse on Michael Morris for recommending it in his talk!

At least you didn't have far to travel, Chris😊.

And well done on your self restraint!

Dave

I have the 9mm and 17.5mm Morpheus and a recently acquired a Pentax XL 10.5mm.

I'd previously owned an XL 10.5mm which had a few particles of debris inside the sealed body, which would move about and sometimes adhere to the inner face of the top lens..they could be shaken off, but not removed altogether; I found them rather annoying, so I sold the eyepiece with full disclosure, at a price that reflected this issue.

But the XL 10.5mm was optically a fabulous eyepiece, just like an XL5.2mm I had, which was also superb. So, when a mint, almost unused 10.5XL came up recently, I jumped on it.

Initially, I thought it would mean the sale of my 9mm Morpheus, but actually the "small" 1.5mm difference in focal length translates to about a 15% difference in my scope of 1040mm focal length..and, since both EPs take a Barlow really well, I am likely to keep both of them, and the various combinations could be quite useful.

Optically, I don't think there is much to choose in the quality of the views (apart from around 10-11 degrees more fov in the Morpheus). However, the ergonomics of both are different, and I find these to be pluses or minuses in different applications..for example, I did for a while have 2 Morpheus 17.5mm, and these made a superb binoviewing pair. I could never binoview with a pair of XLs or XWs, as their bodies are too wide.

In this respect, the design parameters of both become evident: the Morpheus range was specifically designed to be used for astro use, and to be binoviewer friendly..the Pentax XW and XLs were designed for spotting scope use, and by happy coincidence were able to be used for astronomy as well.

Given how good the Pentax' are for astro use, it does beg the question "Just how good could a Pentax range designed specifically for astro and bv use have been??"

One last personal comment, I really like the design and build of both Morpheus and Pentax ranges..I would say that in absolute build and appearance terms I just slightly prefer the looks of the Pentax: but in use, in the dark, I find both to be wonderful, optically excellent eyepiece ranges...along with my Axiom LX 23mm and 31mm UWA's, the 2 Morphs and 1 Pentax  make up the core of 5 EPs that I use the most..👍

Dave

On 12/10/2022 at 13:34, badhex said:

See, I knew I would get drummed out of the brownies for criticising the Morpheus 🤣🤣🤣

..er, you were in the Brownies, Stu??🤔😁

Dave

Oops..just saw Alan's reference before mine..anyway, each to their own!😂