iPeace

Always ready. Is happy to be carried out, and back in, and out again to the rhythm of the gaps in the clouds. Perfectly content to stand by my desk and be admired in daylight.

2 hours ago, laudropb said:

I have read a couple of his books and found them most enjoyable.

"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.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Clear skies.

52 minutes ago, alex_stars said:

the Hyperflex does sound like an upgrade option in the "sharper and more contrast" segment.

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.

1 hour ago, John said:

No deference needed - we can simply agree to disagree on this

 

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

I’ve found that there isn’t much difference between the 7.2 - 21.5 zoom and the Baader zoom plus it’s a lot smaller and lighter. Definately a step up in performance over the Celestron / Seben etc. 

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.

1 hour ago, John said:

I think the 7.2 - 21.5mm zooms do offer a bit more performance un-barlowed than the Seben / Celestron / Skywatcher / whatever 8-24 zooms, personally.

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?

55 minutes ago, alex_stars said:

I'll have to rethink this subject. Nevertheless thanks for all the input. More is of course welcome.

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.

1 hour ago, alex_stars said:

Looking forward to see where you take it from here.

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.

Imagine arriving...only to have to quarantine. 🙄

55 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

[I also keep a Japanese folding fan in my pocket to wave at the eyepiece to quickly evaporate any fog on the eyepiece in the event it does fog up.  Don't laugh.  It works.]

It does! I use an optics blower - you know, one of those rubber syringes used for blowing dust off lenses, etc.

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.

23 hours ago, alberto91 said:

What do you think? do you think it's achievable this century?

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.

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).

2 minutes ago, Robindonne said:

But on the other hand, maybe a shame if you think there are not a lot better Eyepieces while there are.

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.

7 minutes ago, Robindonne said:

I think for a 5 mm i’m okay now!

That's all that matters

9 minutes ago, Robindonne said:

When you’re not that experienced yet, and not have been using often a step higher eyepieces then medium performers, its hard to tell how good or bad, this tak for example, is.

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.

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.

32 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

If not Stanley, then what about ‘Bjorn’ Mike?

(Bjorn:) Sure. Anything to sell underwear.

16 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

If not Stanley, then what about ‘Bjorn’ Mike?

(Tries to casually bring up the subject with the Borg...)

(Stanley, my TV-85:) "You want me to show them my WHAT?!"

(Me:) "Ah, never mind."

17 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Nearly dropped myself in it just a moment ago

Ah, just think of all the shiny new eyepieces you're going to need, must have a dedicated Newt Set, can't be without...

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

7 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

using a comb

You still have one? (Sorry).

21 minutes ago, Franklin said:

Hi there, Astroboot.com has a large selection of slo-mo cables at the moment at very reasonable prices.

Best make that:

https://www.astroboot.co.uk/AstroBoot/spare-parts-for-telescopes.html

(astroboot.com is an astrology site)

49 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

it can be misleading to anyone knowing anything about pixels

I'm safe, then.

50 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Probably best way to "remedy" this pixel analogy would be to explain that pixel will be "lit up" even if there is something very small inside that pixel. Whole pixel will be lit up.

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.

34 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

How can someone see what is not there?

Happens continuously. (But your question is not answered by this observation...)

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.)