Mr Spock

What about the Ursa Major flat field 19mm 65°? No weight listed but it does look fairly compact and light. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ursa-major-eyepieces/ursa-major-fmc-flatfield-eyepiece-19mm.html

Hoping for some good seeing tonight. The jetstream is well to the north 👍

Last night I could just about (with averted vision) glimpse δ Aql at mag 3.4...

I need that Lotto win so I can move somewhere with dark skies.

Clear sky at last. Looking at some doubles in Aquila. First time with the extension so I can stand. Standing is good - lugging the mount around isn't... It's heavy and awkward to pick up. But for a change I don't have any backache from observing 👍

Some doubles in Aquila...

Moments ago saw a really bright meteor, short lived, moving across the top of Corona. Way brighter than Venus...

The only other issue with the scope that high is looking through a RA finder! 

Looks good. Scope is out cooling.

New mount extension brings the eyepiece up to standing height, which is good. What's bad is the extra weight and awkwardness of the whole thing 

Just to give an idea how small the Nirvana is compared to other eyepieces at around 8mm.

LVW is ahead on image quality with the other three very similar. However... Nirvana = 82°, LVW = 65°, Svbony 3-8 58° and the tiny Circle-T ortho just 43°.

Note: the 7mm Nirvana actually measures 8mm.

I don't have a Morpheus to compare but it's probably about the same size as the LVW.

Which of these four I use depends on the target, scope, and what mood I'm in 

Since the introduction of LED lighting my LP has taken a nose dive. 

I used to have an orange sky to the east and clear to the west. Now it's uniform light grey all over. I used to be able to see the milky way and M31. Now I can barely see below mag 4 on most nights - occasionally 4.5 if transparency is good.

I have a full set of Nirvanas. The 16mm is poor with strong field curvature. The others are excellent - very sharp and easy to use. A very small eyepiece relative to some of the others. 

I have a number of eyepieces at 4mm I can compare. The 4mm Nirvana is just behind the 4mm TOE, and ahead of the 4mm Circle-T ortho and Svbony 3-8 @ 4mm (not the 4mm setting which is actually 4.4mm).

39 minutes ago, John said:

If that is replicated visually, say on lunar or jovian detail, that's quite a difference in both contrast and sharpness, IMHO.

Not replicated visually with my two scopes. Both were even as far as detail, sharpness and brightness. I've no idea about these images... If that's a real difference then I'd send the Starfield back as it's not performing as it should.

I sometimes have pangs for the Starfield and regret selling it. Especially when thinking about the cost; the focuser to fix the Tak's problems, and required accessories such as rings and dovetail, all cost as much as the Starfield!

I do like the zero cool down of the Tak though. That's the only difference there is for the extra £2k cost. I'm too committed financially to go back...

It was clear here early on (as it is now), but, you guessed it, cloud rolled over as soon as it got dark. 

13 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

I suspect there is almost no difference until you start to use high powers on the planets, then one may be a little sharper and have a little more contrast than the other.

I found little difference on the moon at around the x220 mark. I wouldn't use either above that. I've had the Tak quite a while now and x224 with the 3.3mm TOE is the best it gets. I've tried the 2.5mm TOE on the moon and it isn't that sharp. Jupiter I stick to the 4mm for x185 - I do the same with the 12" - Jupiter looks better at more modest powers.

I will use the word 'perhaps' here. With the Tak lunar shadows were perhaps a shade darker, and lunar highlights perhaps a shade lighter. The difference is so small you would only notice side by side. Same on stars, both very sharp with the airy disk perhaps a little more etched in the Tak. The Starfield cost £899 and the Tak, with FT, over £3k. 

A sensible person would pick the Starfield every time. But if you want to be reassured that your optics can't get any better off the shelf or want to make a lifetime investment, then the Tak may well be the scope for you despite the huge cost.

I'm happy with mine. I've not heard of anyone not satisfied!

7 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

Possible. How would you tell the difference between focus blur, and blur from spherical aberration? 

Top one the ring is in focus the wood isn't.  The ring is a lot sharper and the web on the hook is more clearly defined.
Bottom one the wood is in focus and the ring isn't.

On that last shot of the rings the focus looks different.

I found, on actual targets (the moon), visually there was little difference.

I have retinopathy so permanent 'floaters' are a nuisance - a string going across the centre of my observing eye. Very noticeable in the 4" but not the 12".

When I had a C9.25, that came with a vixen dovetail. It worked fine. After several years I updated to a Losmandy fitting but it wasn't essential.

Only a small shed but there's plenty of room. It only has to move from inside to outside (patio).

I do like refractors. However, if I was in the position of having a permanent observatory, I would (as a planetary observer) most likely fit it with a C14.

Alternatively dismount my 12" Dob and fit it with rings. It would have to be alt-az tracking though due to fiddly eye position. You can rotate the tube with an extra ring, but 12" is a lump to move like that. No refractor, large or small, has come close to the lunar detail I can see with the 12". What it's like to view the moon's surface razor sharp at x461 cannot be described.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, how I wonder where you are 

Well, it is dark here. That's only because it's been raining though 

26 minutes ago, seven_legs said:

Can I ask, how did you attach the little feet on the bottom of the ota, I can do with something like that for my 12" stellalyra.

They are bolted on. There are convenient holes for this.