Jump to content

1564402927_Comet2021Banner.jpg.a8d9e102cd65f969b635e8061096d211.jpg

iPeace

Members
  • Posts

    2,944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by iPeace

  1. "I bore easily, and I have written for people who bore easily. (...) There was never a dull day, and there should be no boring pages." Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire, 1973 He got it right.
  2. Just to be totally clear, it's not my recommendation, I respect that others are attentive enough to mention it as an option. I'll leave off now.
  3. Well, @alex_stars , it's a very compelling option at the price: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html I really like the Hyperflex and Baader zooms. They work very well indeed. Admittedly, they didn't come to my mind for someone specifically seeking planetary performance at 12mm. I admire the way you're going about determining what it is you seek, very methodical. Good luck and hope to read about it.
  4. As this seems to me to be in response to my own remarks, I happily and wholeheartedly defer to your judgement on the matter. Let it be so, that the Hyperflex is an improvement over the Seben. In the interest of our original poster Alex, and his quest for improved planetary performance at 12mm, I personally wouldn't recommend the Hyperflex (which I did like very much, myself) as a significant upgrade to his Seben. However, if you would, I would be happy and interested to know. Specifically, has the unbarlowed performance of the Hyperflex grown on you?
  5. Thoughts: I urge you to read the following, as it thoroughly explains @John's zoom-barlow-combo: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/317641-happy-coincidence/ It would seem that this barlow enhances the performance of this particular zoom, giving excellent views at (barlowed) focal lengths ranging from 9.55mm to 3.2mm. (I tried this combo myself, and was impressed as well.) This does not cover your desired focal length of 12mm. It's in my mind that the (unbarlowed) Hyperflex zoom at 12mm would not be much of an improvement (if at all) in any way over your current zoom. Unbarlowed, the Hyperflex is a good zoom, very good value, but to me, not exceptional. It's also in my mind that it's (still) a question of what you're seeking to gain with a new eyepiece. You've very carefully determined that 12mm is the focal length you like to hang around at when observing planets; so what is it about your current zoom eyepiece at the 12mm stop that you'd like to improve? How will you know that the upgrade is a success, what will give you more enjoyment? Bigger eye lens? Plenty of options. More eye relief? Plenty of options. Wider field of view? Plenty of options. Sharper, more contrast? Also plenty of options, probably the absolute most to be gained here with an ortho (compromising on eye lens size, eye relief and field of view). A bit more of everything? It's to be had - you have my own input on this. But it's true, the diminishing returns start where you are now. If you're happy with the view as it is, then perhaps seek to try something new to see if it impresses, before a purchase. Not always possible, I realise.
  6. Right. No pressure, then. From my own experience, close to 12mm (I won't spoil the web-window-shopping by putting in all the specs here): A little too long... 13mm Tele Vue Ethos: Fantastic. Very wide view. Very expensive. Probably the last 13mm you'll ever acquire, a keeper, unless the size and weight eventually put you off (it happens... ). 13mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 6: I use the Type 6's exclusively now, my personal compromise. Wide and sharp, compact and light. Not cheap. Just about there... 12.5mm Baader Morpheus: Very nice eyepiece; view certainly wide enough, lovely big eye lens, not too big or too heavy. Excellent value for dosh. Recommended. 12mm Tele Vue Delos: Again, very nice, not cheap. Beautiful big eye lens. My own experience was a feeling that it was a bit too chunky and heavy for the view I was getting - but this is a very personal observation and probably an injustice; these have a solid following. For the size and weight, I preferred Ethos. 11mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 6: See above; this focal length is no longer in production. Getting a bit short, now... 10mm Tele Vue Ethos: See above. 10mm Pentax XW: Goodness, these are nice. Premium build quality, huge lovely eye lens, fantastic views. To me, it's the ultra-posh version of the Baader Morpheus. If only they made a 12mm for you... Special mention for: 11 or 13mm Tele Vue DeLite: I never tried these; did own and enjoy the 3, 4, 5 and 18.2mm versions. The least wide, but very sharp, lightweight and the most compact but for the Type 6 Naglers. So... what to do? Well, you can't go wrong with any of the above IMHO. You decide how large and how heavy you'll allow your eyepiece to be - and how expensive. Putting myself in your shoes (as best I can), I reckon the 12.5mm Baader Morpheus, while being the cheapest, may well hit a sweet spot for you. I really like its ergonomics and its price-to-performance ratio, and would live very happily with its performance for the budget (diminishing returns, etc.). Looking forward to reading how you get on.
  7. It does! I use an optics blower - you know, one of those rubber syringes used for blowing dust off lenses, etc.
  8. Do you like the field of view when using the 8-24 mm zoom at its 12 mm setting? Do you like the eye relief of the zoom? Which zoom do you have? Baader or other? Just to get a hint of where to go with this.
  9. What would we do when we got there? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, for all the good reasons, so by all means, crack on. However, shrinking our galaxy may only make sense once we've actually fulfilled the promise held by the process of shrinking our planet. In other words, Nature will have given us plenty of space (literally) so as not to be able to bother anyone else 'out there' with our behaviour. Reaching out and finding life, meaning or whatever 'out there' will not make us realise that we need to get our act together. It's the other way around. Only when we've sorted ourselves out (assuming we're meant to...) will Nature decide that we're ready for less space. So, in a way, striving for travel far afield is an expression of our wish to do and be better - which is good. But going about it in the same old way - thereby hoping for different results - is futile. The next move is up to us, as it's always been.
  10. Well, here they are. Take note, the OOUK is a VX6L, a later model than yours. To me, they look different enough to suggest that the GSO (right) is not a simple drop-in replacement for the OOUK (left). The mounting screws don't seem to line up at the same distance from the end of the tube. The tube diameters also vary slightly; the OOUK's rings won't fit properly around the GSO (perhaps to be expected, the OOUK is aluminium, the GSO steel) but the inner diameter also seems to be different, so maybe a tight squeeze for the GSO's cell in the OOUK's tube. The end ring needed for the integrity of the aluminium tube is a distinct, separate part. Noteworthy is also the lack of dedicated locking bolts on the OOUK VX6L... ...while the GSO has plenty. So, from where I sit and how I see it, I wouldn't advise a GSO replacement cell, unless you're prepared for some DIY (which can be fun).
  11. True. It's what we all get into, at least at the beginning. What you will find (guaranteed) is that the more you pay, the less of an improvement you get (it could be worth it, to you, but you'll have to find out for yourself...). Plus, you need to like using it, regardless of how 'good' it is. That's all that matters
  12. I say: just use it, and look to see how good you think it is. If it's better or worse than something else you've used, you'll either notice, or not. The difference you notice is what counts.
  13. As it happens, I've got two 150mm newts standing unused, a GSO f/6 and a OOUK VX6L f/8. I can't promise a solution, as their fates are undecided, but I'll try to take some measurements and pics, might render some useful info as to how to proceed.
  14. (Bjorn:) Sure. Anything to sell underwear.
  15. (Tries to casually bring up the subject with the Borg...)
  16. (Stanley, my TV-85:) "You want me to show them my WHAT?!" (Me:) "Ah, never mind."
  17. Ah, just think of all the shiny new eyepieces you're going to need, must have a dedicated Newt Set, can't be without...
  18. Help is on the way...you should get plenty of responses. Meanwhile, check this out: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html
  19. Best make that: https://www.astroboot.co.uk/AstroBoot/spare-parts-for-telescopes.html (astroboot.com is an astrology site)
  20. I'm safe, then. Re-thinking this, yes, I had assumed the 'full-pixel-triggering' without realising it, let alone expressing it. Way out of my depth here with regard to the actual science of this, but it's very interesting. Happens continuously. (But your question is not answered by this observation...)
  21. Just to see whether I get this; if I were to explain this (to someone vaguely interested) in very simplified terms (expressly taking into account the arbitrary nature of the selected criteria on which the given size of exit pupil is based, so not as 'rule of thumb'), could it be like this? compare to an image comprised of pixels displayed on a computer screen aperture determines the number of available pixels exit pupil determines the extent to which the available pixels are involved in the actual image above a certain 'optimum' (bear with me, here) size exit pupil, not all of the available pixels are used to display the image (more magnification will result in more of the available pixels being involved in the actual image) at the 'optimum' size exit pupil, all of the available pixels are involved in the actual image (it's as resolved as it's going to get) below the 'optimum' size exit pupil, you're not involving more pixels (as there are no more), you're making the individual pixels appear larger all things being equal (conditions, design and quality of optics, experience/expertise of observer), making the individual pixels appear larger can help with detection of the details of the resolved image, thus enriching the image subsequently formed by the human brain (= a potential benefit of using higher magnification), at the cost (possibly) of perceived sharpness (= a potential drawback of using higher magnification; 'looking at larger pixels') in practice, perceived results will vary according to all things not being equal, one of them being personal taste (With particular thanks to @vlaiv for the detailed explanations.)
  22. The Vixen HR eyepiece. Beautiful (assuming you find this important). Understated, classic, modern-yet-vintage-retro look. The black and chrome. The engraved, serif-less font harks back, then points to the future we were hoping for back then. Solid. Very well built, the quality and care taken is self-evident. Lightweight and compact. The combination of the previous two is amazing at first encounter; you immediately feel how nice it is, but wait, how can it be so light? There can't possibly be enough glass in there... Comfortable; the rubber eye guard blocks stray light and gives perfect position; somehow the eye relief feels like more than specified. And then, in actual use... ...it just disappears. In a simplistic way, it makes sense: if there's hardly any glass in there, then there's not much to look through. But this is like there's none at all. And yet, the image is duly, effortlessly magnified, all is there to be seen, with nothing that is not. How does it do this? Personally, I will never (really) know, nor do I find it really important to know. Just very happy to have owned and used them. It is absolutely everything I like in an eyepiece... ...except... ...the field of view ...which would not be an issue, if I used a driven mount which kept the target in view for me. Indeed, if there was no more FOV than this to be had, then that would be it. I could almost convince myself that at these focal lengths, all others are to be ignored (surely Galileo and Sir Patrick Moore would have made due)...but for me, other considerations prevailed. Ah. Nostalgia. The design doesn't scale up to greater focal lengths, they say. Oh well. (I don't doubt it.) So now, so shortly after their introduction (no, at the time, I didn't notice the initial fanfare either - was there any?), it seems decided that the market is saturated, absolutely swamped with them and it's no use making any more. And so, true to form... ...they just disappear. It's not an entirely gloomy prospect; they are out there being used and will be for a long time to come. Perhaps this is how you go about creating a legend. I couldn't script it better.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.