Jump to content

Narrowband

Voyager 3

Members
  • Posts

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Voyager 3

  1. 6 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

    I have 14 eyepieces in my kit box and one coma corrector.  The 2" adapter for that CC, and the 3 eyepieces with undercuts all got the treatment with copper tape

    to fill in the undercuts, and now slide right in and out.

    The copper tape technique works quite well.

    Let me guess,

    3.7mm,4.7mm,6mm,8mm Ethos 

    11mm Apollo 11

    22mm Nagler

    30mm UFF 

    4.5mm,6.5mm,9mm,12.5mm,14mm,17.5mm Morpheus 

    What's the missing one? 24mm UFF?

  2. On 25/06/2022 at 00:19, great_bear said:

    Now that is a VERY astute point. 

    I am in the same boat as the OP - same FL for the same scope weirdly enough - and whilst I was set on a Delite, this thread had me considering the Pentax. 

    But parfocality? Darn good point there.

    It bugs me already that the Delos 17.3 isn’t parfocal with the other Delos, but having to refocus whilst at the other end of the focal range - whilst chasing a target at high magnification? Hmmm yeah, that’s possibly a dealbreaker for against the XW for me. 

    So did you get either of these eyepieces?

  3. 4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

    Zoom eyepieces are always going to be a compromise on image quality / aberration correction v convenience. Still, a good 24-8 mm and x2 Barlow could be all you'll ever need. It's certainly the simplest option; just look at how many eyepieces some of us have :ohmy:

    Have you tried the Leica zoom? Every eyepiece is a compromise, one way or the other.

    • Thanks 1
  4. I too agree that recognisability doesn't just depend on the no of bright stars. 

    If I show the stars of Orion to a person jogging in the street, he might come close to saying a man holding something in the hand. One really can't think of any other thing. Crux is literally a cross. Now that's what I'd call recongisable. 

    But the man who created the constellations Vulpecula and Canis Minor must have had god-like imagination for sure.

    • Like 1
  5. 19 hours ago, Louis D said:

     

     Well the XW sale has put the smack dab at the same price as DeLites and this is what the doubt arises.. if one doesn't want the ergonomics of DeLites(like binoviewing), why would one even buy one now? 

  6. Have you compared the XWs and DeLites in the 5mm and 7mm FLs? What is the consensus? Price is out of contention as they are both at the exact same price now with the XW sale. Going to be specifically used for lunar/planetary. 

     

    Will I gain anything at all if I choose the DeLites? I've read enough that the DeLite might be a smidge ahead from respected folks like BillP but would like to hear from more people who've directly compared them. 

    8" F/6

  7. 12 hours ago, Ags said:

    After years (decades?) of being an odd range with just 3 1.25" focal lengths - 4, 7 and 16 mm - the TS site is showing a 13 mm now. If anything the range is even odder now with 4, 7, 13 and 16. If I was going to add one focal length to the Nirvana range it would have been an 11 mm - halfway between the 7 and 16....

    https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p14477_TS-Optics-1-25--Ultra-Weitwinkel-Okular-UWAN-13-mm--82--Gesichtsfeld.html

    I had the 16 mm for a while and loved it on some nights (fabulous views of the Moon) and loathed it on other nights - on those nights it was fuzzy and astigmatic off axis. My experience didn't chime with the general consensus of the eyepiece holding its own against the equivalent Nagler... Still, I toy with the idea of picking up another (maybe I was unlucky with my sample of one?), and getting the 4mm for my top magnification. 

    I wonder how this 13 mm will fare?

    There is a Omegon version of the 10mm in TS.

    https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p13051_Omegon-Eyepiece-Oberon-10-mm---82--Field---1-25--Barrel.html

     

     

     

  8. 1 hour ago, Louis D said:

    Well, here's an actual photo Markus posted recently on CN of the eye lens end:

    spacer.png

    I'm going to say that the M43 thread is under that knurled ring rather than under the rubber eye cup.  As such, the Dioptrx might not be able to reach the M43 thread because of the upper M37 thread.

    Here are images of the Sky Rover version:

    621245452_SKYROVERHFW7.7-15_4mm.thumb.jpg.a6ee818b91f3d280984af6d986e9f8a7.jpg

    That seems to confirm my suspicion that the eye lens (27mm) is way too small to accommodate both a 75° AFOV and 18-20mm of usable eye relief at the same time.  You'd need about a 36mm eye lens as in the Morpheus, not 27mm as here, to do that.

    It also confirms my suspicion that the M43 thread for Dioptrx is below the M37 thread, rendering it useless as is.  Perhaps if you screwed an M43 to M37 step down ring onto the top it might work.  I'll bet no one at the factory actually tried to put that CN member's donated Dioptrx on it to check for compatibility.

    It also confirms the 2" barrel is nonremovable.  This means a lot of in-focus will be required for 1.25" usage.  That could be a deal killer for BV'ing folks running out of in-focus.

    Finally, here's the manufacturer's animated gif looking through the eyepiece while zooming showing constant field (good) and slight SAEP (kidney beaning):

    245458900_HFWZOOMAnimation.gif.b5e1ea8d5e2d672c8b86abc25eed0789.gif

    Rectilinear distortion looks well controlled, and edge sharpness appears good as well.  Perhaps it would make a good travel eyepiece for me for nighttime and terrestrial usage as long as I don't mind panning my eye around the field while wearing glasses.

    Another image in that thread show the price at 2099 Chinese Yen which equates to about $318, so not much cheaper than APM's $349 price.

    Thanks Louis great info! 

    Where did you find the zoom for 349$? APM website lists it at 395€. 

  9. 6 hours ago, Ags said:

    It does a pretty good job of quantifying our uncertainty!

    :thumbsup:

    We may never be sure in this situation. There is an infinite number of possibilities for life in infinite number of planets. We don't even know whether ET life requires a planet like us. So yeah, it's uncertainty at its best.

    • Like 1
  10. Stree lights go a long way in ruining deep sky observing. Certainly much more than background light pollution. 

    This is coming from someone whose house is at the corner of the street with a street light just a few metres away. The best you can do is to avoid the direct light by hiding behind a wall or a light shield like you said. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.