JTEC

Just picking up on the above, I own one of the Astro-Systems 6” f6 altaz Newtonians and it is a little gem. Lovely mirror, simple, lightweight, cinch to collimate (rarely needed). It should be nominated a classic. I have a few scopes but it’s a firm favourite. I’d dearly like to find something similar with more aperture! Not sure where if anywhere you’d find that these days. I guess OO is now the only game in town.

Quite hazy here in the SE. Enormously reduced man-made pollution - which was very obvious on the haze-free nights we had several days ago. So presumably down to natural atmospheric conditions and the contribution of pollen? A botanist once explained to me that the haze we were looking at over the Weald was substantially contributed to by pollen particles. On a more general note, it’s quieter here, there’s less light pollution and a distinct sense that Nature is moving back in. Hooray! Environmentally speaking, the one thing we mustn’t do when this is all over, is to aspire to get back to the place we were.

Does look to be just the ticket! assuming it will attach well to your bins. I had a Berlebach tripod - all excellent quality kit, as you say.

I don’t think the ‘three legged thing’ would be so good because it wouldn’t allow you to angle and move the support about as freely - the monopod is such a good combination of stability with flexibility. If you were going for three legs, a normal tripod would be more stable than the item in the link, as far as I can see. But then you lose the flexibility. 😐

Here are a few pics of the adapter etc. The bins are Nikon Action Shoreline 7x50s 6.4degree. As you can see, they have a screw hole at the front to accept fittings; it had a plastic cover but that’s lost. The adapter is marked ‘Opticron 31005’. It has a choice of two holes on its short side that fit the monopod top end. That has a standard thread to fit the base plate of, for example, a DSLR or to receive a head of some sort. Fully extended, the monopod measures 64 inches. Extended, it remains very solid. Hope that’s some help 👍🏻

😊 There’s no ball head or similar on there. You could, of course, include one. But I find enough range without and not having one, I think, makes for greater simplicity and directness. It’s nice to just point the ‘unit’ without having extra knobs to fiddle with. It does take hand wobble out of it - a bit like a long putter in golf. There is an L shaped angle that screws straight onto the monopod top and, at the other end, screws into the front of the central bar of the bins.

Here’s how I use the monopod with my Nikons. It’s a Manfrotto. You get a lot of stability. Not that I wouldn’t like some IS bins as well ... 😊

I much prefer a monopod over a tripod. Very steady with my 7x50s and much more flexible in use, standing, seated or lying down. A tripod is fine for just staring at one thing - if you feel like carting one about - but no good for sweeping around, which is one of the things bins are best at.

Similarly impressive seeing here, with the Vixen HR 3.4 and Tak TOE 4 incredible on my little AstroSystems, by Rob Miller, 6” f6 Newt. I’ve never had a chance to use the famed ZAOs but don’t see how they could be better than these - unless they had the capacity to reach out and switch off the seeing. Dropping the mag considerably, the 11mm TV Plössl was also outstanding in terms of contrast and sharpness, preferable, to my eye - and I know this is heresy - to the 10mm Delos. Increasingly unfashionable with so many spectacular new arrivals to the eyepiece scene, it would be a pity if the ‘umble TV Plössl slipped into obscurity. If only 1) the Vixen HR and Tak TOE could be replicated at longer focal lengths - we’re told that they can’t be; 2) the TV Plössl could be more comfortable at shorter focal lengths but that can’t be either. In the end though, we are hugely spoilt by the range of quality options that we do have. I wonder to what extent reduced human activity is a factor in the improved seeing. In my part of the SE the Sky is typically full of aircraft and turbulent with con trails that disturb and spread a veil over the sky; on clear days a heavy pall of muck hangs over the motorways that will dissipate and later on enable the scattering of waste light. But, for now, we have something of a glimpse into the way the sky used to be.

Here you are, this will cheer you up. Notice how the image is subtly enhanced by the judicious use of star spikes. The effect is all but imperceptible but the difference is there 🤣

Pretty impressive detail! If I might ask, how do you cope with the glare/brilliance of the disc as you’re not using any filtration? Some imagers want spikes so badly they even buy little apps to add them in where there aren’t any 😂

Certainly interesting at that price, S and S. I guess the 100 degrees would help with that big Dob of yours ... is it driven? I wonder where the optics for the APMs are sourced. Deeply outraged that they have pushed aside the 17.5 mm Morpheus you bought from me 😂 In case anyone wonders why I spoke so highly of that eyepiece then sold one - I had a pair for binoviewing but preferred the narrower field of a pair of 18mm Tak LEs

I concur with MikeD 👍🏻 I have the 8 and 10mm Delos and a 13mm Ethos. I’d thought to build up the Delos range, then tried the 17.5mm Morpheus. I shan’t get rid of the excellent Delos pair but I won’t be buying more - I’ll be filling in with Morpheus when I can afford to. The 17.5 is optically excellent, imv, ditto for the 6.5 which I’ve now bought as well. Marvellous piece of design and execution as the Ethos is, I wouldn’t spend out on it again. I personally think that (field of view apart, obviously) the Delos has a slight edge over the Ethos and I find that I’m happier with the 72degree or smaller afov than with 100.. But that’s a matter of personal preference ... expensive personal preference 🙂. So, Morpheus - fantastic value! I have the 3.4mm Vixen HR and the 4mm Tak TOE. These are simply the most astonishing eyepieces I’ve ever used. If pushed, I’d favour the Vixen but couldn’t find anything objective to explain why. Sharpness, contrast, etc, etc - it is almost pointless talking about these qualities. Both eyepieces somehow manage to combine all the optical quality you could want with being comfortable and a pleasure to use - no squinting about into a pinhole with these. More than any other eyepieces I’ve tried, they have allowed me to see what my scopes can really do.

JJust a couple more points. Our eyes are so different and not just in the obviously quantifiable ways. I’m completely confident about my 7.8-9 estimate back then, at least within an error of maybe 0.3 of a mag. Epsilon Lyr has always just looked like two stars - though it doesn’t nowadays without a slight tweak from specs. But friends have been better at discerning subtle planetary detail, and it’s not for want of experience, appropriate instrumentation or looking. O’Meara has seen the Galilean satellites with unaided eye, which he confirmed to me in an email. I’ve never met anyone else who has, though there are various tantalising stories. I guess glare from the primary has a lot to do with this because afaik angular separation/resolution should not be an issue for ordinary good human vision. Sky background is obviously a big factor all round: natural sky glow, aurora, zodiacal light, etc before you even think about light pollution that travels far from source to pollute remotely what once was illuminated only by natural light. Like many ‘developed’ countries, we have forgotten what an unspoiled natural sky looks like. Even some of the designated dark sky reserves in the UK are nothing like as dark as ordinary rural places routinely were 50 years ago. Light pollution in the UK is now so ubiquitous and normalised that we have slipped into defining as ‘dark’ places that are just not quite as desecrated as everywhere else around them, and we’re in real danger of congratulating ourselves on securing patches of mediocrity.

It’s certainly possible to see darker the mag 7 given the necessary sky quality and eyesight. I know because 20 or so years ago I estimated 7.8-9 from a high quality site in the Canaries. I’ve always had very good eyes. However, neither my eyes nor, I suspect, with the spread of light pollution, the quality of the site are what they were then. I was already an experienced observer at the time and not at all delusional. That said, I would expect there to be some error in the estimate but significantly fainter than mag 7, no question. With regard to dark skies in Kent, I lived most of my life in Kent and still go there frequently. There were some decent dark skies in Kent back in the 80s but that all started to go away once work started on Eurotunnel and with the consequent growth of Ashford, Canterbury, Medway towns, etc most dark places have been lost and the sky quality is overall quite polluted. I know Stelling Minnis very well - it’s not particularly dark. Dark sky maps are not all completely informative in locating the best observing sites. The (excellent) CPRE Night Blight interactive map, like most others now, shows light shining upwards as recorded in satellite imagery. It doesn’t show you what the sky and horizon would look like if you were standing in what shows as a ‘dark’ place on the map. From Stelling, for example, there will be significant horizon light from Folkestone and Dover and perhaps Ashford as well. I think the darkest places in Kent nowadays are probably to be found around the Romney Marsh. I also had some good observing some years ago from sea horizons on the East Coast.

As Stu says ... I’m fortunate to own a Baader MkV bino and a TEC140. I’ve tried various eyepiece pairs in the combo, including a pair of 13mm Ethos (not mine!), a pair of 24mm 68degree Ex Sci (same numbers, if not quality, as 24mm Pans) and a pair of 17.5mm Morpheus. The 100degree Ethos pair was visually confusing. I kept one of the 24mm and one of the Morpheus because I like both eyepieces but didn’t like them that much in the bino - others will have had a different impression perhaps. Those are the eyepieces I no longer use or aspire to using for binoviewing though I like them for mono. The ones I much prefer have narrower apparent fields of view. After lots of trialling and testing, the best performing eyepiece pairs in my combo are: 20mm Long Perng Plössl 18mm Tak LE 9 and 12.5 mm Tak orthos 11mm Televue Plössl Also spare a thought for the pretty much unique 28mm Edmund RKEs, which work well Barlowed in the bino. There’s a pattern here 🙂 I can’t be sure but I don’t think it’s just down to viewing tastes because many others say something similar. A welcome advantage is that premium price eyepieces are not required. I think it was Roland Christen who advised against using any eyepiece shorter than 10mm in a bino and advised using longer fls and Barlowing up. FWIW, this is what I do, Barlowing with either the TV Powermate ahead of the prism or the Baader x1.7 (really closer to x 1.5 I think) GPC.

Sunshine, I was persuaded to go for the Powermate (2”x2) over the TV Barlow that I had originally planned to buy. I haven’t regretted it - superb build quality, optically about as good as it gets imv and in use more or less invisible.

As Stu says, the scope will take it and likely won’t be the limiting factor. My 103 is very comfortable with the 6.5 Morpheus and the 4mm Tak (x180). That’s about as high as it would normally want to go I think, though it was fine with the Vixen 3.4 on the Moon. As far as I know, using a x2 Barlow will retain the apparent field of view of the eyepiece while, of course, doubling the mag and reducing commensurately the true fov. I think your idea of going for a shorter Morpheus next makes perfect sense. The 6.5 seems excellent to me and great value.

With my two refractors - TEC140 and Zenithstar 103 - the best (sharpness, contrast, colour rendition, etc) 4mm eyepiece I’ve used is the Tak TOE 4mm. The Vixen HR 3.4mm might be a bit shorter than you want to go but I think is equally good, perhaps even better. No sig difference in quality that I can see, maybe slight difference in ‘character’. For such short fls, both are quite comfortable to use. You might like to check Bill Paolini’s review of the Vixens. I also use the 6mm Tak ortho and that too is excellent. Increasingly though, around that fl, I find myself using the 6.5mm Morpheus instead - still sharp, no discernible gap in transmission or any other disadvantage as far as I can see, wider fov (useful if you’re using, say, a manual alt-az) and more comfortable. Sticking to the ones I’ve used, the 6mm Delos would be a great alternative but pricey. I know others speak v highly of the Pentaxes. With high quality Barlows or Televue Powermates, I don’t think you lose any quality; and the comfort you gain might make for more effective and enjoyable observing - arguably a better option than struggling with tiny eye lenses and short eye relief. A no-compromise alternative, imv, as long as the quality is there.

My experience too. And so in my scopes is the 8mm. The Tak TOE 4mm I think is also exceptional as is the Vixen HR 3.4. Less expensive but still very good imo Baader Morpheus - I’ve been impressed with the 6.5mm. Of course, you could also go all ‘purist’ and try one or two of the Tak orthos, again excellent, if you don’t mind the narrower fov. We’re spoilt for choice 😑

On reflection, John was referring to the guys in the clip, in which case I was too quick to jump in - having read plenty of his other posts, it did seem out of character! Believe me, I want to like it - the entire family has been waiting for weeks (sad, I know) - but I truly don’t rate it. I won’t bore you by spelling out why. To those who enjoy it, good for you ... I’ll keep watching in the hope that it comes closer to what I’d hoped it would be. 🖖🏻

Let’s be polite John please. The definition of a self-important idiot is not ‘any person who disagrees with me’. A scan of widespread opinion on Picard shows that plenty of people like it and plenty of people don’t. That’s OK and the way you’d expect it to be. 👍🏻

As a committed and serial Trek watcher from the earliest beginnings, I was excited to hear about Picard. Enjoyed the first three episodes but felt the last degraded things badly: shallow, slow, unimaginative, over-dependence on effects, bits of cheap nastiness - just another formulaic programme of and for today that has lost touch with its more thoughtful origins. I’ll stick with it for a while longer - I want to like it but for me it needs to improve.

Peter, interesting question. I think ‘immersive’ is partly a subjective thing, though facilitated or not by an optical system. Something like being able to forget the presence of the instrument, feel part of what you’re looking at and experience the sensation that you could dive deeper into it to explore. For me, that means binocular vision. Not so much to do with width of field, more about a sense of depth. Best single example that comes to mind: M42, 140 apo, ZeissBaader binoviewer, 2xPowermate ahead of prism, 2x18mm Tak LEs. It’s like being inside the nebula ... well, not quite and of course the impression is illusory ... but you know what I mean. Single eyepieces don't do this for me, wonderful though many of them, Ethos for example, are in providing expansive views.

I’d agree that they’re well made and they do offer something different. The idea of enhanced widefield vision is an attractive one. But part of that attraction, I think, is the expectation that it might be possible to experience a seamless extension of natural vision. For me, that didn’t apply, mainly because of the optical and ergonomic compromises involved. And, living where I do, I felt that I quickly exhausted what they had to offer. But that’s not to knock the design - which is constrained by what is optically possible to a budget - or the concept. I’d happily own another pair, especially for a trip to truly dark skies.