Louis D

A separate finder scope can be nice to have to avoid eyepiece swapping and possibly upsetting the aim on an undriven alt-az mount.

Yay! Glad to hear you're getting some sort of resolution from the seller. Keep us informed.

For most of the images, I use a Samsung Galaxy S7's rear camera. For complete ultrawide images as in the SAEP/CAEP comparison collage and for the older "full view" images, I used the ultrawide camera of the LG G5. The screen died on this one recently, so it's been retired. I recently switched to the ultrawide camera on the LG G6 for higher resolution and sharper images just before the G5 screen died. I'll have to either get another used LG G5 for new SAEP photos or retake all of them with the L6. I haven't noticed that low power eyepieces are rendered sharper, but I have noticed that the depth of field of these cameras renders eyepieces as having much flatter fields than they have in reality. Here's the longest eyepieces comparison image. The Meade 5000 Plossl 40mm looks worse than the Meade 5000 SWA 40mm both to the eye and in the image at f/6 in a 72ED. If the camera is making it look better than reality, it isn't by much. Here's a side project image that I haven't updated in years showing performance in a 127 Mak with many of the same eyepieces: In this image, even the Rini Erfle 42mm is sharpening up nicely at the edge, just as it appears to the eye. And here's the 29mm - 30mm comparison image showing how "flat" the Agena UWA 80° 30mm is. In reality, you have to refocus quite a bit for the edge to get that same sort of sharpness: Again, some of the same eyepieces in the 127 Mak: Here, even the awful Rini 29mm and Kasai 30mm look usable. Even to the eye, they are both much improved. All I'm saying is that if the combined pupil is being reduced, I'd expect the images at f/6 to move somewhat noticeably toward the f/12 images, but they don't seem to move much if at all compared to what I'm seeing with my eye. It's not like I'm ignoring any mismatch with reality because I do see the massive flattening of curved fields in the camera images.

Just to toss in another option, look at a 150mm (6") f/5 GSO Newtonian OTA. I picked up one used for about $300 with a GSO CC. It's light, has no cool down issues, gives sharp and color free images, holds collimation really well, can give low power views, can have a dual speed focuser (mine does), and has the eyepiece in a position easily used while sitting with it mounted on a mount with a low tripod (more stable than using a fully extended tripod with a long frac). Here's some comparison images of the moon I recently took through several of my scopes. Any of them except for the 6" f/5.9 achromat work well for lunar observing. However, even to my eye, the Newtonian was showing finer details than the smaller scopes (or the achromat). No surprise, the 90mm APO had the highest contrast images either to my eye or in a photograph. However, that triplet takes over 30 minutes to equilibrate for high power work.

Beautiful scope. It really looks like a yard cannon with those giant altitude trunnions in black contrasting against a white OTA. 😉 I hope the current owner is making good use of it.

Definitely not ring of fire. You get a rainbow effect when photographing it. Below, see how the ES-82 30mm (6th row, second from left) is exhibiting classic CAEP (rainbow ring) but no SAEP (black ring), and the Meade MWA 26mm (5th row, far left) shows massive SAEP and in the second image from the left shows slight CAEP with the camera pulled back from the exit pupil midpoint to defeat SAEP. The Morpheus 14mm (second row, second from left) has barely any SAEP and no CAEP at all. There's also no obvious color cast relative to other eyepieces not exhibiting either SAEP or CAEP. Strong SAEP really throws off my camera's auto white balance, making things more yellow. The Morph 14mm also shows a nice, sharp field stop. I'm not doubting what you're seeing, it's just that I don't see the same thing in my copy of the eyepiece. Perhaps yours is faulty/defective in some manner? How long have you had it? Did you buy it second hand? Was it always this way?

This is a brand new scope? You might want to contact your credit card company (if you paid using one) to file for a chargeback based on the seller selling faulty goods and refusing returns.

It looks like you don't quite have the camera's entrance pupil lined up with the eyepiece's exit pupil. I generally keep an index finger and thumb between the top of the eyepiece (with eyecup rolled down or removed) and the back of the phone to maintain a steady alignment and distance. I vary these two by carefully rolling/repositioning my finger/thumb slightly. It helps if you can wedge your butt up against a wall to steady your whole body while doing this, or use a sitting position. Regardless, it takes practice and taking lots of shots to be examined on a big monitor later to choose the best of the bunch. Sometimes I'll reset and start over if the images are coming out terrible on the camera screen. Sometimes, if SAEP is at work, there's just not much you can do to get a good image because there is no one best distance for the eyepiece's exit pupil. If the alignment isn't perfectly centered and the camera isn't perfectly level to the eyepiece, you'll get kidney beaning instead of a perfectly circular black ring midway from center to edge. If you pull the camera back slightly, you can get another set of images demonstrating what is visible without kidney beaning. The key to getting a sharp field stop is to start too far away and slowly move the camera in closer until the image edge suddenly snaps into having a sharp edge. Go too far inward, and you start getting blackouts. Too far away, and you get vignetted edges. Off center, you get non-circular images with asymmetric vignetting. Tipped, you get blackouts on one side. However, this is useful for getting straight on images of the edge using the center of the camera's imaging field to eliminate the camera's contribution to distortion or aberrations. Practice, practice, practice. 😁

You want some stiction to allow it to hold its position when you stop moving it. Perhaps you're expecting no stiction? Just make sure the ground board and pads are clean.

The GSO CC has a design distance of somewhere around 70mm to 75mm between the optics section and the eyepiece focal plane. I use the original eyepiece holder and add a 25mm spacer ring (48mm thread) to mine to get it in the ballpark of the correct distance. The design tolerates about 5mm of variance on either side of optimal spacing without changing correction all that much visually. With the Clicklock instead of the original eyepiece holder, you'll need to measure the change in separation distance to figure out the best spacing ring length. You'll probably want to remove the CC for high power work because it introduces some spherical aberration visible only at high powers.

I haven't noticed it despite using it quite a bit lately. The worst premium eyepiece I've owned for EOFB is my 12mm NT4. One night it was so bad that the graying extended almost to a point on axis. I swapped in my 12mm ES-92 for comparison, and suddenly the sky background was evenly dark again. I swapped back and forth a few times to make sure I wasn't imagining it. I'll look again more critically for EOFB in the Hi-FW sometime.

Yes, because I wear corrective eyewear at the eyepiece, and have years of experience critically comparing eyepieces for various aberrations and other issues. Your point is what? Ego stroking or snidely trying to take me down a notch? If you believe I am unqualified to discuss eyepiece performance, just come right out and say it and present your evidence to support that view. I'm always willing to have a cordial debate on topics near and dear to my interests. I'm well aware of my eyes' limitations and always take them into account. I have my eyes examined yearly and get new glasses yearly. In fact, I find it annoying when folks who don't even know if they have eye astigmatism because they haven't had their eyes examined for years make any sort of claims about eyepieces lacking sharpness. That, or they live with small amounts of astigmatism because they don't want to be bothered with corrective eyewear. They often forget to take that small amount of astigmatism into account when critically examining eyepiece aberrations. That being said, it's not hard to distinguish eyepiece astigmatism from any residual eye astigmatism with correction if you are a careful examiner for aberrations. Simply put a moderately bright star on axis and rack the eyepiece back and forth through best focus. Any change in the shape of the star out of focus from being perfectly round is pretty much dependent on your own eye's astigmatism because I've yet to find an eyepiece that exhibits astigmatism on axis. In my case, the change with corrective eyewear is negligible. I just see a round Airy disk. Now, move that same star in steps toward the edge and repeat the focus racking to observe how much the star changes shape on either side of best focus at various point across the field of view. Astigmatism will cause the star to stretch radially on one side of best focus and tangentially on the other side. At best focus, it may resemble a small cross rather than a point of light. Most eyepieces exhibit some amount of astigmatism when used in f/6 or faster scopes in the last 5% of the FOV in my experience. Only a very small number of the very best corrected eyepieces show practically no astigmatism at the edge. My 10mm Delos and 30mm APM UFF immediately come to mind as having none at the field stop.

I'd never given it much thought, but all of my Dobs have the focuser on the right (E side) as seen from the primary end. Thus, I pull as I track when viewing south, my typical viewing arrangement.

Compared to my Pentax XL 14mm, the Morpheus 14mm has slight edge astigmatism in the outer 10% at f/6 and faster. However, the Morpheus has a much flatter field, but it still has a slight curvature. However, when refocused for the edge, the Pentax is astigmatism free to the edge. However, since I don't ever refocus while letting stars drift across the field with my undriven mounts, the Pentax loses on net. Thus, the Pentax was relegated to my B-team case while the Morpheus was promoted to my A-team case. That said, I prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm over either. It is wider in both AFOV and TFOV than either, absolutely flat of field, and astigmatism free at the edge. The only annoying thing about it is that it compresses objects into the field stop instead of stretching them like most eyepieces. That, and it is quite heavy. I like it so much, I keep it with my grab and go kit because I tend to use it exclusively some nights when scanning the skies aimlessly to unwind.

I usually just put my 8" Dob vertically in a corner of the back of my van and simply bungee cord it in place. It works just fine.

I'm having difficulty diagramming this in my mind's eye. Doesn't your entire body sit to one side or the other of a Dob when observing? None it is in front of (below for big Dobs?) the tube when observing in my experience. Could you explain a bit more how your body heat ends up wafting up in front of the open end of the tube? FWIW, I'm also left eye dominant, so I feel your pain when using DSLRs and other devices that assume right eye dominance. My DSLR's rear screen has all sorts of nose grease imprinted on it because of this.

Based on the Pentax XW and XL lines, which are similar to the Morpheus in that the eye relief and AFOV remain relatively constant across focal lengths, it is the upper image forming section that remains relatively constant while the lower section Smyth lenses change to achieve different powers. The exceptions start occurring as the focal length gets longer. I'm pretty sure the 17.5mm Morpheus has a different upper section based it having a reportedly narrower field of view and having been designed years after the first group. Pentax XWs: Pentax XLs: Notice the subtle difference in the lowest lens of the upper section of both the XW 20 and XL 21? I have a feeling the Morpheus 17.5mm is similar in having a different upper group prescription. Also notice that the XWs added a middle element to the 7, 10, and 14 that didn't exist at all in their XL counterparts. I have a feeling it was to better control alignment of the various edge rays across the field when going from 65 to 70 degrees. Lastly, notice how many Smyth group variations there are across the two lines. Apparently, that is where the designer was allowed the most degrees of freedom. By keeping the upper section mostly constant, they could reduce manufacturing costs across multiple focal lengths. Only the small Smyth group lenses are unique. In the XL line, it appears that only the spacing was changed between the 10.5 and 14 and the 5.2 and 7. For the XW line, it appears the designers were allowed to create unique Smyth prescriptions for each focal length, not just spacing. Disclaimer: Since Baader hasn't released detailed internal lens diagrams for the entire Morpheus line, we can only conjecture about them based on outward similarities to other eyepiece lines that are better documented.

If you had 2.0+ diopters of astigmatism in your eyes as I do, you'd be in the same position as me unless you wore toric contacts at the eyepiece or managed to get on with Dioptrx. As it is, the view of stars in eyepieces with a 1mm or larger exit pupil look like star bursts to me. This pretty much negates having finely figured optics.

It ousted my 14mm Pentax XL mostly because it is wider and has less field curvature while being as sharp and contrasty across the same field. When refocused, the edge of the Pentax is sharper than the significantly wider Morpheus's edge. It was a tough choice, but I went for the Morpheus. I would think the 14mm Delos would put up a tougher fight.

I know I don't make a purchase until there is a certain amount of positive feedback from folks who know what to look for in eyepieces and report accordingly. Early on, I made some boneheaded eyepiece choices by not doing my due diligence first and then weighing the pros and cons. A recent example for me would be a desire to purchase the 23mm Pentax XW-85 to replace my 22mm Nagler T4, but many folks have reported that it is tight to use with eyeglasses, so I've held off.

Well, then the difference in measured field stops between it and the APM Hi-FW is even less at just 2mm.

I received this email from Svbony this morning saying they would be at the NYAA Starfest 2023 in Ontario, Canada, with equipment to try out and sponsoring speakers. It's apparent they want to be taken seriously as an astro supplier. I'm glad they're becoming more actively involved in the astro community. Dear Sir, This is Svbony. Thanks for your continuous support and love for our brand. From August 17th to 20th, we will be participating in the Star Party in Ontario, Canada, together with our distributor Telescope Canada as a sponsor. We sincerely invite you to join this special event. (Place: River Place Park, RR 3, Ayton, Ontario, Canada) The offline exhibition will include the following highlights: 1.New product showcases: You will have the opportunity to see all of our telescope series, including the new SV550 122mm. At the event, you can try out our astronomical cameras and other accessories for visual or astrophotography observations, free of charge! 2.Keynote speeches: Our company representative Ryan will introduce our brand, and we are honored to sponsor star fest and invite Fred Espenak to give a speech. This will allow you to better understand our brand story! 3.Small gatherings: We will provide snacks and a relaxation area for our attending fans, creating a relaxed and enjoyable environment to facilitate mutual understanding, getting to know each other, and making more friends! 4.Take Photo and get prizes: Anyone who visits our offline booth, takes a photo, and shares it, will receive a gift from us! 5.Purchase discounts: If you make a purchase at the event or place an order on our official website under the confirmation of our company representative, you will receive additional discount coupons! We are looking forward to meeting you and spending this wonderful time together. In order to better organize the event, we sincerely hope to receive your reply. If you can attend, please respond to us before August 13th. You can also let us know if you have any other ideas or suggestions. If you haven't joined our Facebook community yet, click the link below to apply and interact with more people! https://www.facebook.com/groups/svbony Have a great day! Svbony Cindy Henaneshow, Zhengzhou,

I only have the 9mm and 14mm Morpheus eyepieces. I've thought about getting the 17.5mm Morpheus, but it's hard to justify it when I already have a 17mm ES-92, 17mm Nagler T4, and 17mm AT AF70. That, and I tend to skip over that focal length. The 12.5mm APM Hi-FW I have has a 19.8mm field stop diameter and more magnification, so I rarely feel the need for a slight step up in true field size and decrease in magnification that would be the 17.5mm Morpheus.

There is no Morpheus to compete with the 24mm UFF (Ultima Edge) with a 27mm+ field stop for widest field in a 1.25" eyepiece. The 17.5mm Morpheus with a 23.55mm field stop diameter is apparently as far as they can push that design. I won't argue that the 24mm UFF is perfect edge to edge (it isn't), but it's way better than any other long eye relief SWA class eyepiece at 24mm to 26mm in a 1.25" fitting. As @Don Pensack said above, the 30mm UFF has no peer, Morpheus or otherwise.

That's why you need to start with bright objects to be able to establish with confidence where the new focal plane resides. Also remember that most eyepieces project a curved focal plane, so you might have out of focus edges on your sensor.