Louis D

2 hours ago, EdG said:

Still, my new scope has now arrived and I can actually pick up the box without giving myself a hernia 🤣🤣🤣

I looked at getting a used 127 Mak on a EQ3 mount.  The moment I tried to pick up the fully rigged mount to move it, I realized it was not for me.  Way too top heavy and awkward to move fully assembled.  I ended up going alt-az to avoid counterweights which greatly reduced the overall weight.

Good luck with it and keep us updated about your experiences using it.

55 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

I don't think selling the missus' car to pay for one of those would go down well!

No need to.  Just raid the retirement account. 😉

Why didn't you just get an 8" Dob in the first place?  I've been hauling mine out in one go for 20+ years.  I'm up and going in under 2 minutes.  If I need to dodge a tree or bush, I just pick up the whole thing and move it in one go again.  I've never missed tracking.

You definitely don't want to jump up and down on the ground anywhere near a telescope coupled to the ground when being used at high powers.  I did an experiment with my daughter once where I focused on a planet or star (I can't remember which) and had her walk away up to about 50 feet and jump up and down at each distance.  The amplitude of the vibrations definitely went down as distance increased, but I could still see the impact it had on the image.  It's wild just how well the ground transmits impulses of energy.

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

What Louis said and:

The 17.5mm needs to be 2.5mm farther in, closer to the CC lens, to become parfocal with all the other focal lengths.

All the Morpheus eyepieces have their focal planes at the 1.25" to 2" transition shoulder.

Except the 17.5mm, which is 2.5mm higher, in the 2" section, so it needs to be 2.5mm lower to become parfocal with the others.

If you're within 5mm either way of the best correction distance with the GSO, it's hard to perceive any improvement by tweaking the distance, so I wouldn't sweat the last 2.5mm for the 17.5mm Morph.  However, being 21mm off is quite noticeable as with my 12mm NT4 that I had to parfocalize to get decent correction.  It's the only eyepiece in my collection that is that far off from focusing within ~5mm of its shoulder.  That's why I felt I had to point this out to @Barry-W-Fenner, so he wouldn't be disappointed under the stars by the poor correction in that configuration.

Considering that the reference plane is the shoulder between the 1.25" and 2" barrels, and the depth of the 2" barrel is 21mm, you'll need an additional 21mm of separation in 2" mode to get back to the optimal working distance of 75mm even with the spacer ring you already have.  Alternatively, put a 2" to 1.25" adapter in the CC and use the Morpheus in 1.25" mode.  Then, you might be a bit farther away than 75mm, but not by as much as being 21mm too close as in 2" mode.

1 hour ago, Connorbrad98 said:

It's the one with bits of orange around it would the 18mm Delite be a good upgrade from this eyepiece?

A very good upgrade, but it still can't correct for field curvature of the primary, so check that first by refocusing for the edge.

In my tests of the Meade 5000 HD-60, generally considered optically similar to the Celestron X-Cel LX, the 18mm does have some edge astigmatism at f/6 in my field flattened 72ED refractor as revealed by blurriness below:

However, it's pretty minor compared to a Konig or even the Paradigm/Starguider BST.  The Delite should be at least as sharp to the edge as the Nagler T4.

Many modern quintuplets are triplets up front with a doublet corrector somewhere between it and the focal plane.

6 hours ago, CasualObserver said:

I would assume that depending on the length of the session, dew is impossible to avoid regardless of how dry the air is?

If the dew point is well below the ambient temperature, dew formation is highly unlikely.  If they are close, dew formation is likely.  Just check the relative humidity.  In my experience, anything above 70% can be suspect.  Above 90%, dew is almost guaranteed.

1 hour ago, Pixies said:

"... committed to making the exploration of the universe accessible to everyone," Vaonis founder Cyris Dupuy said

Hmmm 🤔

Exactly my thought as well.  Everyone with deep pockets?  I'm wondering who is funding these guys.  Do they really have enough sales to be profitable?

Is this another Celestron Xcell eyepiece giving you problems or the same one you posted about below:

If so, why the duplicate post?  Why not continue the original thread with your current question?

Have you tried refocusing the edge to see if field curvature is the main culprit?  At 600mm focal length, I have to use a TSFLAT2 with my 90mm f6.7 APO to ensure stars are sharp to the edge.  Since your refractor is the same FL, I would think you need to use one as well.

I really like binoviewers for planets and the full (or near full) moon.  It evens out the brightness between my eyes allowing me to make out fine details easier.  It also helps reduce the visibility of my floaters.

These are non-issues for DSOs, and I enjoy the much wider fields of view available in mono-viewing for star field sweeping; so I don't binoview them.

I find I can see much more planetary detail in my 8" Dob than in my 90mm triplet APO, so I tend to use the latter for wide star fields.  The stars appear as much tighter pinpoints than in the Dob which is aesthetically pleasing to me.

7 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Do you know how they perform compared to earlier models? I have 6.7mm and apart from ER - I quite like those (have 11mm also but that is not redesigned).

Sorry, but not enough eye relief to interest me.  Besides, I have 9mm Morpheus, 7mm XW, and 5.2mm XL at approximately those focal lengths, so I'm good.  I also have a S-W 5-8mm zoom if I want to go wider with less eye relief in that focal length range.

There has been little forum reporting on these eyepieces that I've seen.  The initial 2019 lot had to be recalled due to image quality issues (reversed lens maybe?).  This was fixed by year end 2020, perhaps earlier.  Denis the binoviewer guru posted a brief reaction to his 8.5mm pair on CN.

4 hours ago, Ricochet said:

Do you know if the new eyepieces are redesigns or have they just changed the rounding for marketing purposes? 

The LER lineup within the 82 series (4.5/6.5/8.5mm) are new designs to increase the eye relief a bit compared to their predecessors.  They came onto the market over 2 years ago.  It appears that the old 4.7/6.7/8.8mm 82s are now discontinued to make room for these new LER eyepieces.

It all depends on the relative humidity inside and outside, and if you're using a watertight case (which an IP65 apparently is).  For instance, in the winter, our outside air in Texas is bone dry most of the time, while the air inside my house is rather moist.  Thus, I cap and pack my eyepieces into my Doskocil watertight cases before going inside to prevent dewing and simply store them away.  I typically cap my OTAs before bringing them inside to slow the otherwise instantaneous dewing, allowing them to warm up with the trapped, dry air inside them.  Once warmed, I remove the covers just to be safe and wait to put them away.

However, in the summer when it's a hot swamp outside and relatively dry and cool inside my house thanks to AC, I bring everything inside uncapped and let it all cool down and dry out before packing it away.

54 minutes ago, callisto said:

Hi all,

Don't mean to hi jack the thread...has anyone used a pair of these in a Binoviewer? 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/skywatcher-uwa-planetary-eyepieces.html

 

Mark

Merging high power eyepiece views can be problematic because they can expose any slight collimation issues in the binoviewer.  I do as Jeremy suggests above, use low power eyepieces with a Barlow element out front of the BV.  Since I end up operating at 3x or about f/18, just about any wide field eyepiece looks great.

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

@Deadlake. I wanted a lightweight option for my AZ100, so I leave it permanently on my BB Uni tripod. I can carry the combo from the garage to the observing area. I then just add the TSA 120. No pier/riser.

The Berlebach Planet is beefier, but a bit too heavy to carry with the AZ100 in place.

I’d never go back to ally having tried BB tripods 

What sort of chair do you use while observing with this setup?

22 hours ago, CCD-Freak said:

Long ago I heard a seasoned machinist state that using just a bit of paraffin wax rubbed onto the threads will keep things from seizing.  Not being an oily liquid i would think it would not migrate. 

I have been meaning to give it a go but have not as yet. Has anyone tried using it?

Would definitely melt here in our summer heat.  It got up to 102° F here yesterday.

20 hours ago, Xgaze said:

Had mine nearly a month now (as per my post above in the link) I have found it pretty underwhelming to be honest! I was expecting it to show planets slightly larger, which it does however, I was not expecting to lose so much detail. Perhaps this is to be expected? But I didn't read this anywhere or have any kind of idea it would, very noticeably, sacrifice definition and clarity for the extra magnification.

Contrast seems to go way down at higher powers without increasing aperture.  That's one reason going with a large Dob with a very well figured mirror can reveal lots of additional planetary detail.  Of course, steady seeing conditions as we have most of the summer here in Texas really help as well.

27 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I just checked my BHZ Mk4. I don't yet have the Barlow (due in November!) but as I rotate the zoom control the lens assembly at the base of the EP does indeed rotate, but the 1.25" barrel does not. So used in 1.25" mode, with the Barlow screwed to the barrel, the Barlow does not rotate but used in 2" mode, with the Barlow screwed to the lens assembly, the Barlow will rotate. Since the EP is held in place by the barrel in 2" mode the Barlow will be free to rotate anyway and so this isn't a problem. I'm quite relieved as it would have been a pain had the Barlow rotated with the zoom control in 1.25" mode!

I didn't realize it was possible to screw the Barlow into the lens assembly rather than the 1.25" filter threads.  That must be where so much of the confusion arises with this combination.

18 hours ago, Spile said:

See my earlier reply above. The Barlow needs freedom to rotate as the fl of the eyepiece is changed.

My only other EP is a 2” so It’s also a lot easier to have everything set up in the same way.

Have you tried screwing the Barlow into the 1.25" filter threads in 1.25" mode to avoid the rotation issues you experienced screwing it into the lens assembly?

3 hours ago, Spile said:

See my earlier reply above. The Barlow needs freedom to rotate as the fl of the eyepiece is changed.

My only other EP is a 2” so It’s also a lot easier to have everything set up in the same way.

So, the 1.25" barrel rotates as the BHZ is zoomed?  I knew the upper barrel holding the eye cup rotates, but I was unaware of this secondary rotation.

I tried a pair of 17mm Astro Tech AF70 which are optically the same as the SW SWA 70s.  I couldn't get my nose between the two because the tops are too broad, too close to the eye lens.  I need a tapered top or a narrow body overall.

I find a 60 to 65 degree eyepiece pair is fine for binoviewing because you can't look off axis without losing the view through one or the other eyepiece.  With two eyes, it seems at least 5 degrees wider than with monovision.

Have you considered using a ~20mm eyepiece with a 2x Barlow nosepiece to get upwards of a 7mm equivalent (2x operating a ~3x due to optical path length).  At the higher f-ratio, just about any 20mm looks great.

For the same money, keep an eye out for a used Celestron Ultima, Parks Gold Series or Orion Shorty Plus 2x Barlow.  They are still one of the best shorties I've ever used.