Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

marcus_z

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by marcus_z


  1. 3 hours ago, F15Rules said:

    ...Or maybe needs a clean? I think these tiny eye lenses are often so fiddly to clean that people don't bother.. 

    ..But they can still get a film over them. Short FL Eps like these have one purpose - to give the sharpest, clearest, most scatter free performance your scope can deliver. So they need to be as clean as possible..☺☺

    Dave

    Thank you for your suggestion. Cleaning both Hi-Les did not change the situation.

    • Like 1

  2. On 12/02/2019 at 13:38, mikeDnight said:

    I've not yet used a 3.4mm HR, but I've owned both the Tak 2.8 & 3.6 Hi LE's. I noticed there was some mild ghosting with both my Hi LE's, and some very strong ghosting on a 5mm LE, so as a consequence Takahashi eyepieces will always have a question mark over their quality control in my eyes. I'd love to try out the new TOE eyepieces but I'd have to look through one first.

    Yesterday night I observed the moon with my HI-LE 3.6mm. I have two of them and compared these two concerning halos/ghosting. Indeed, they both exhibited halos on the almost full moon, but one has shown a much stronger halo than the other! I have no clue why they differ so much. Then I compared the better of the two HI-LEs to the HR 3.4. I tend to say that the HI-LE appeared a bit sharper and a tiny bit cooler, but the difference in sharpness might also result from the longer focal length. The HR is a bit more comfortable due to its longer eye relief. Mike if your HI-LE was as bad as my worse HI-LE, then I can totally understand why you gave it away.

    I wonder If the halos in my HI-LEs are due to condensation inside the eyepiece? I will try to store them in a more dry environment and check the halos sometime again.

     

    • Like 2

  3. Has anybody here compared the Vixen HR 3.4 to a Hi-Le 3.6? I have tried to compare those two eyepieces, but have not yet come to a final conclusion. My first impression is that the Hi-Le has a cooler tone and more sharpness...


  4. On ‎07‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 06:46, nicoscy said:

    The slightly better color correction (the stark pure view of the TSA  Vs the slightly warmer view from the FC) is possibly not worth it.

    Have you compared the two scopes directly? I have to admit, that I have not, but I find my FCs have a rather cooler tone compared to other scopes. I never considered them to have a warm tone. The TSA however impresses with snow-white out-of focus star images.


  5. The TSA had to leave  because I don't need so many scopes. It is (slightly) better corrected than the DL, but I had two reasons why I sold it:

    1. The tiny bit of better correction is not worth the heavier weight, which results in a larger mount, more counterweights, and finally a heavier setup.
    2. If I want to see "more" I can still take a larger scope, with higher resolution and about the same weight of the full setup.

    Right now I have two DCs and a DL. My plan was to build a binoscope with the DCs, but the more I did my research for appropriate eyepieces, the more I realized, that the aperture ratio is not high enough to find wide-angle, bino-friendly eyepieces for large exit pupils. So that's why I want to sell one of the DCs. The other two scopes, DC and DL, are keepers ?.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.