F15Rules

On 14/05/2021 at 19:57, Soligor Rob said:

Well that's my first Morpheus in my case, next on the list the 17.5 mm & 9mm.

Thanks to you all for the recommendation.

 

I can foresee your eyepiece selection Morphing soon into, er, more Morphs, Rob... 

Dave

3 minutes ago, Soligor Rob said:

What can I say Oh wow couldn't believe how clear and sharp the image of the moon was, first views with the Sky Watcher Explorer 150 PDS were amazing, I then switched the EP to the 200P Dobsonian and was surprised that the image didn't appear as clear.

Could the DOB be slightly out of collimation, Rob? I'd expect the Morpheus to work as well in both scopes.. or perhaps you meant that the image was smaller in the DOB, which was then fixed by doubling the magnification?

Dave

Good job, Fedele!👍😊

It's great fun binoviewing with no OCS or Barlow, at native magnifications..I've always got confused regarding exactly what magnifications I'm getting when an OCS or Barlow is inserted into the binoviewing system.

Also, you can now get nice low power wider fields with objects like Pleiades, the double cluster etc.

Dave

On 07/05/2021 at 12:38, SuburbanMak said:

am currently using this to plug in 1.25 EPs to the Prinz 60mm, if I bought the Vixen thread adapter you recommend, would that give me the same field stop as a 1.25 as opposed to this, which means I can use 1.25 EPs but with the .965 field stop? 

Sorry for the delayed reply...yes, the adapter will open up the aperture to illuminate 1.25" eyepieces fully, whereas at the moment your adapter will only open up to a 0.965" maximum, so most 1.25" eyepieces are likely to vignette if their field stop is wider than your current adapter will allow.

I see you've ordered the Vixen adapter, I'm sure it will much improve the views when using modern 1.25" EPs 👍.

Dave

Some semi-rigid pluck foam arrived today, and I used it to reline an old but very robust and quite large aluminium case so I could make homes for my emerging 2" & dual barrel eyepiece set. 

L/R rear:

Morpheus 9mm & 17.5mm, and Celestron Axiom LX 23mm and 31mm (two of the biggest eyepieces I've ever owned).

L/R front:

Carton Zoom 7-21mm (keeping this as it's just so suitable for any scope and very versatile both for grab and go and in variable conditions in a single session), and Nagler T2 12mm.

For those with OCD who notice that the Morph 9mm and Nagler 12mm should ideally be in reversed positions, they are placed this way as the Morph 9mm is a tall eyepiece and fits better where it is shown😊.

I've also fitted 2" to 1.25" adapters to both Morphs as I mainly use a 2" diagonal, and will get one for the Nagler soon also..

This case also has a very robust handle...(not for Jeremy's benefit, but because the combined weight of this lot is significant!!)😁

Dave

19 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

The Morpheus don't disappoint.

They perform far beyond their price points and equal many much more expensive eyepieces.

In addition, my field test reveal they have superior light transmission as well.

A 40% spread runs 4.5mm, 6.5mm, 9mm, 12.5mm, 17.5mm, so the 14mm is the odd man out, so to speak.

In my 12.5" f/5 scope (f/5.75 with Paracorr II coma corrector), ALL the focal lengths perform superbly.  Even the 14mm.

The 1825mm equivalent focal length is so flat that I don't even see FC in the 14mm, which many people do on shorter focal length scopes.

 

Ernest's lab tests at f/4 show the field edges have star images of:

4.5mm 14'  dominant edge aberration chromatic aberration 78°

6.5mm,  16' dominant edge aberration chromatic aberration  79°

9mm 14' dominant edge aberration astigmatism 78°

12.5mm 16' dominant edge aberration field curvature 78°

14mm 24' dominant edge aberration field curvature 78°

a 10' figure is essentially indistinguishable from a perfect point, so the 3 shortest focal lengths are truly superb, in that this performance is at f/4 and longer f/ratios yield better results.

Distortion figures were average for the apparent fields.

 

At f/5.75 (my scope with Paracorr), the performance is better than this.

 

 

Enough said, I think.

Thanks Don.

Dave

28 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

And sturdy handles?

Yes, of course, I forgot...the Morpheus' come with a little pouch which can be slung around the waist when in the field..I believe they rest on the average well fed male amateurs' "love handles" 

Dave

49 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

And sturdy handles?

Yes, of course, I forgot...the Morpheus' come with a little pouch which can be slung around the waist when using them in the field..I believe they rest on the average well fed male amateurs' "love handles" 

Dave

On 09/05/2021 at 15:40, Soligor Rob said:

Right I've taken in that most here rate the Baader Morpheus EP's fairly high, so can I ask how the compare to the Celstron X-Cel LX range of EP's.

Please forgive my innocence if the answer is blindingly obvious.

I agree with Badhex' opinions..I've owned several Celestron Excel eps a few years ago. They are nice, midrange eps. They have a decent 60 degree fov and pretty sharp views.

IMHO, though, the Morpheus range is significantly superior, having much bigger fov, consistent build quality, safety kerfs, much better coatings and light transmission and razor sharp (not pretty sharp) views. They also have sealed bodies, so are dust proof.

They cost about twice the price of the Celestrons when new, so they should be better too!

I would very much place the Morphs optically in the top tier of modern high quality eyepieces and very close behind TV and Pentax in build quality.

They also do barlow very well. I use mainly a Baader Hyperion Zoom barlow 2.25x and see no significant deterioration in the images barlowed versus native.

HTH😊

Dave

22 minutes ago, Stu said:

My Morpheus has finally arrived, held up waiting for another component which was out of stock.

Looks fabulous actually, I really like the look and feel of it. I’ve fitted the eye guard extension as having looked through it I think it will be needed but will confirm later. The exit lens is huge, but you all knew that anyway 🤣🤣

I can see a few more of these coming along if I like it. 17.5 and perhaps a few short ones too.

Great stuff, Stu! 

That last photo looks more like an Apo scope objective!😂..

A great focal length and should barlow really well too. Look forward to your impressions.

Dave

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

“Quite good” is an expression that I’ve come unstuck with a couple of times with US colleagues. In British English it generally (but not universally) implies that something is passable, generally OK, not terrible. But not as good as I was expecting.  That’s how I use it. But I understand in US it (often) means really rather good, certainly better than OK but slightly less than superb 🤔

Thanks for that very enlightening explanation Jeremy..I really feel that I've got a handle on that expression now!😁

Dave

3 hours ago, John said:

I like the twin knobs on the ADM clamps for that reason. If you accidentally loosen one, the other still grips at least some of the dovetail bar.

 

I should think that "tube security" on the mount is probably the single most important thing on most of our minds when setting up/taking down our kit?

It's one of the reasons I really like the Tak tube clamp so much, and also why I like my Tak mount so much too..my FS128 is a large tube, (tube diameter 145mm, dewshield diameter 180mm), so the clamshell is large too.. because I use a Tak EM2 mount with it, the clamshell bolts straight into the inbuilt threaded holes in the mount itself, so it's physically impossible for the clamshell to detach from the mount, and no dovetail is needed.

And the clamshell knob is so large, and such a distinctive shape that it's virtually impossible to mistake it for any other lever or knob..😉

I do have to loosen the clamshell to rotate the tube in certain orientations, but at least then I know which knob I'm turning..and I have memorized how many hand turns of the clamshell knob are needed before the clamp loosens sufficiently to allow the tube to rotate..(it's 20 turns!). And I support the tube down by the focuser end with one hand before beginning to rotate the tube with the other.

Dave

2 hours ago, PeterW said:

I remember @Stus sad looking dented reflector. In that case a hammer could fix, not an option for you. Good to hear you’ve got it sorted.

Peter

As a refractor only man, I actually thought Stu's picture was the nicest pic of a ship's funnel, sorry, reflector, I've ever seen!😋😂😂

Dave

PS: only joking..😊

3 hours ago, Dave61 said:

so I have got a handle coming tomorrow.

Music to my ears, Dave!👍😂

Dave

1 hour ago, Grumpy Martian said:

Just came in and watched Country File. Can be seen on catchup tv. Steve Tonkin features.

Apologies if this has already been posted

Link below.

 

Countryfile - 9 May 2021 - 9/5/2021 - Sunday - BBC - TV Everyday https://tveveryday.com/countryfile-9-may-2021-952021-sunday-bbc/

Hi Martin,

Yes, I was watching Countryfile as usual over dinner and was surprised (and pleased) to hear Steve's name mentioned in their item about dark skies in southern England..and then the great man appeared in person and did an interesting but short interview about the importance of trying to bring back dark skies in the UK.

In case any of you don't know, Steve is "BinocularSky"  here on SGL, and is a literal mine of great info on the use of Binoculars of all types in Astronomy.

I still enjoy dipping in and out of his excellent book "Binocular Astronomy" https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781846287886

Steve also freely shares an excellent monthly sky guide specifically for  binocular observers.. you can subscribe to this useful e-resource by contacting Steve via his website, or by pm through SGL. 

A top guy with encyclopedia- like knowledge of binoculars👍😊

Dave

On 08/05/2021 at 16:26, callisto said:

A very nice pair of Vortex Bino's arrived today thanks to Auntie FLO  😃

I got these mainly to check out the wildlife that surrounds me...they are tack sharp with great contrast and come with a nifty harness...will give them a bash for astro even though they are just 8X42mm  

 

Great looking bins!👍

Don't underestimate what a good pair of 42mms will show you at night..my little Vixen 8.5x32mm roofs are really nice low power nightime bins, especially on clusters and starfields☺️.

Enjoy!

Dave

4 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

To some extent yes, but I like to use it with the 6.5mm, where it works really well, giving me extra magnification beyond the 4.5 for those tight doubles and small planetary’s

I agree.

I have sold my two  of my 3 excellent Carton Japan  eyepieces (10.5mm and 28mm to a good friend here on SGL) to help fund my latest Axiom LX pair..

However, I'm keeping the Carton 7-21mm zoom, as it's small and light, and optically very good (similar to the BHZ). I can also use it in my small 80mm and 60mm grab and go refractors: along with Baader barlow I can get down to 3.11mm focal length, which delivers 334x in the Tak, and far more than either the 80mm or 60mm achromats can usefully handle. 

Just such a versatile unit👍

Dave

I look forward to hearing your impressions of the 12.5mm Morpheus, Stu..in general I really like the 9mm-12.5mm focal lengths in eyepieces, as they can be very versatile if they Barlow well. 

I have just re-acquired a 9mm Morph (should never have sold the original! - how many times have I said that!😂), but haven't yet had a chance to try it properly.. with my 2.25x and 1.6x barlows I can get very useful powers in my frac of 115x, 185x and 260x from the 9mm. With the same barlows, the 17.5mm delivers c60x, 95x and 133x - so 2 EPs can offer 6 very useful magnifications.

Over the past 4 and a bit years I've used or tried the 9, 12.5, 14 and 17.5, and now have the 9 and 17.5, which I feel are the best of the 4 mentioned above.

That said, all 4 are excellent in IMO, and the 14mm, although having some field curvature, still had a good deal less than my Pentax 14mm, and I sold the XW soon after buying the Morpheus. The 12.5mm had less FC to my eyes, and if I didn't already have the Nagler T2 12mm I'd be after one of them too.

I've never used the 4.5 or 6.5mm, but have read good reports of them, especially the 6.5..

I see the key positive features of the Morpheus range as being:

- superbly comfortable and immersive viewing experience 

- Wonderful light transmission

- wide 76 degree (some have measured some variants at up to 79 degrees!) field of view - very noticeably wider than for example the (also excellent) XW range

- (almost) parfocal across the range

- very good edge correction, almost right to the edge in my F8 Tak

- great c20mm eye relief across the range, so suitable for glasses wearers

- lightweight but strong and robust construction

- no undercuts! (The innovative safety kerfs really do work)

- huge eyelens and different eyecup options with the included extender

- excellent for binoviewing

Negatives:

- range stops at 17.5mm!

- now that the early run cheap and nasty eyecups have been vastly improved, I can't think of any other negatives..

Although prices have crept up over the past couple of years, I believe the Morpheus range still offer a great mix of performance and price, hence their current popularity.. I'm really looking forward to spending some quality time with the 9mm over the next month or two! 😉👍

Dave

Nice scope, with quality optics 👍.

At F13.3 CA should be negligible and contrast and sharpness should be excellent. I'd expect it to be noticeably a step up from your Prinz 330, nice though that is.

I'd strongly advise you to buy this adapter:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vixen-36-4-31-7AD-3720-03-astronomical-telescope-ring-eyepiece-adapter-JAPAN-/254366925246?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286

The scope deserves modern eyepieces, and the adapter will allow you to use a modern 1.25" diagonal and eyepieces.

The grey coloured component at the focuser end (into which the scopes' original 0.965" diagonal fits) should unscrew from the chromed focuser tube to reveal a 36.4mm Vixen female thread: the adapter mentioned above has a male 36.4mm thread which will screw into this female thread, to convert the scope to a 1.25" capability.

If you like this scope, keep your eyes peeled for the 80mm version, it's a cracker and full 3"+ aperture..looks a lot like the Swift 831?

This is an interesting read about a similar Eikow 60mm F15 version..

"Eikow ST3500 60mm F15 - Pics plus short review - Classic Telescopes - Cloudy Nights"

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/501896-eikow-st3500-60mm-f15-pics-plus-short-review/

Enjoy😉

Dave

9 hours ago, paulastro said:

I came across this telescope in a charity shop this morning, how disappointing 🤔.

Rubbish scope..but just look at that handle!!..smooth, flowing lines, satin silver finish..ooer, I feel faint, need to sit down!👍😋

Dave

1 hour ago, Sky-searcher said:

@Dantooine That’s how I started with the so called weakest link, then followed the 9 & 6.5 mm. On the look out for a 17.5mm that will complete my set ( for now at least 🤔). Will be interested to see your thoughts on them as you have tested green & black! 

My first Morpheus was a 14mm and I loved it..only sold it (and almost everything else "astro" I owned) to fund my FS128 4 years ago.. I then waited several years for the 17.5mm to be launched and also got a 9mm which I sold but recently replaced. I think they are all excellent, and because they Barlow so well, I'm not in a hurry to go shorter than the 9mm..my Baader zoom Barlow at 2.25x gives me 260x in the Tak, ample for most nights👍. And having got the older but excellent Nagler T2 12mm, I don't see much point in going after the 12.5 or 14mm, great though they both are🙂.

Dave

1 hour ago, Dantooine said:

The one on the right looks massive 🤣

Well, put it this way...

Nagler 31mm 82 deg, 35oz/997g

Axiom LX 31mm 82 deg, 45.85oz, 1300g

🥴🤕😱☺️😁😂🤣

You need a robust focuser for this eyepiece! Fortunately, my FS128 has one, and it handles it pointing up, no problem..(this is where a good R&P focuser beats most Crayfords IMHO).

But honestly, the views make the weight worth it..

Dave

Today the postie delivered my new to me Celestron Axiom LX 23mm eyepiece. Having just bought the 31mm recently and being delighted with it, I also decided to go for the 23mm from the same seller..I've wanted another Vixen LVW22mm for a while, but they've become as rare as hen's teeth..if the Axiom 23mm is as good as the 31mm (and reviews suggest they are), I should have similar LVW22mm performance, but with an 82 degree fov.

These Axiom LX's are BIG, heavy 2" eyepieces: but they are very well made, with machine engraved script into the aluminium cases, and a wonderfully smooth helical eyecup adjustment so you can get very comfortable.. the photo of the pair of Axioms show the 23mm on the left with eyecup extended upwards, and the right shows the 31mm with the eyecup only slightly upwards.

These two join my 2 Morpheus' 9 and 17.5mm, and a lovely Nagler 12mm to complete my main ep set - all with 2" capability and UWA fov between 76 degrees and 82degrees🙂.

Could this be my permanent, keeper set?😱😂 (Where have I heard that before??!)..

Dave

Both the Pentax and SLV eyepieces you mention are excellent, both have a very good optics, good contrast and are ergonomically comfortable.

However, the Pentax has a 60 degree field, noticeably wider than the SLV's 50 degrees: since your Mak is a long focus scope (nominally c F11.8) it will already have a narrowish field, so I personally would choose the Pentax 8.5mm.

Also, there are a number of online reviews which claim that the Skywatcher 127mm Maks are actually operating at 118-119mm, ie about half an inch less aperture than claimed by the manufacturer.

If this is correct, this would have the effect of increasing your scopes' focal length bit more (to c F12.8), so all the more reason, to my mind, to take the wider apparent FOV of the Pentax.

Dave

Taks - worth the premium over other brands?

After reading the whole of this fascinating thread, I thought it worth revisiting the original question..

I don't doubt the sincerity of the OPs question, but it seems to me there can be no yes or no answer to this question. And that would apply for any other brand name you care to think of besides "Tak"..

We all have our own subjective opinions, and these are informed by our own experiences. 

I do think that, with respect, no one who has never owned or regularly observed with a Tak can validly pass an opinion on this question, just as if the question mentioned "SW Esprit" instead of Tak, no one who hasn't owned or regularly observed with that scope should pass an opinion either.

For those of us who do, or have owned a Tak scope, we will still have our own reasons for our answer being "yes" or "no", or "yes, but.." or "no, but".. they are all simply opinions, that's all.

Price, performance, looks, resale value, peer reviews, etc etc will all inform our opinions.

No one scope brand should be "worshipped" as already stated.. but do let's recognise oustanding performance, workmanship and aesthetics  -wherever we find them?

Dave