MY NEW SKYWATCHER PANORAMA

[Gliese581c]

high quality but dont look as good as the ES 82 Fov

i have the ES 24mm 82 Fov and 15mm and 7mm panorama

thats its buying a whole set is just silly you never use all

of them most people just buy the set for the sake of having

the full set thats it.

[Damo636]

Fire in the hole!!!

[John]

Thanks for posting the photos.

Looks are subjective I guess but how do they perform and what scope are you using them with ?

Thanks

[cotterless45]

Love the 15mm, use it in the Lightbridge and gives the space walk experience,

Nick.

[alan potts]

I thought they looked awful, until I saw some shots posted on site taken by I believe FLO. I have to agree with John, it is what they perform like is what matters. That is unless it is the Meade Extreme 100, it is sure living up to its name in the looks department.

Alan.

[faulksy]

be interesting to see how good they are and how they stack up against the nirvanas

[E621Keith]

I thought they looked awful, until I saw some shots posted on site taken by I believe FLO. I have to agree with John, it is what they perform like is what matters. That is unless it is the Meade Extreme 100, it is sure living up to its name in the looks department.

Alan.

Either Skywatcher employed a really bad product photographer, or this is a really cleaver marking stunt. First release some really ugly images of the eyepiece to get people talking, then when the first brave soul bought them, they will post on forums and we would all realise it doesn't look too bad and would be interested in how it performs. If it performs well then the rest of us will follow to buy this 'not really that ugly eyepiece' ....

I still think they messed up the aesthetic and then made it even worse by getting a bad photographer.

In the end, all that really matters is what it's like looking through it, rather that looking at it.

PS. OP: Congratulation on your new eyepiece. Would love to know how they perform.

[Mr Spock]

They do look ugly - but does that matter in the dark? I'd like to know how the performance compares to their rivals. At a fraction of the price of a Nagler they could prove to be a good alternative.

[crazyjedi]

Man they're ugly! If the optics are good I'm sure you won't care though :-)

[crazyjedi]

here's a thread starter - ugliest EP SW panorama or Meade 100 degree ep's

[alan potts]

Meade 100 extremely ugly wins for me.

Alan.

[Dunkster]

Meade 100 extremely ugly wins for me.

I'm with you there Alan, but these new SW look smart

Not that any of it's relevant in the dark...

[E621Keith]

I'm with you there Alan, but these new SW look smart

Not that any of it's relevant in the dark...

Except for the Meade of course. It has such an ugly shape, you can feel it's ugliness just by holding it. The Meade XWA is the only eyepiece on the market that is ugly in even the dark.

[alan potts]

Would you have a set of them if they were free?

Alan

[crazyjedi]

Would you have a set of them if they were free?

Alan

Yes probably - But I'd tell no body that I had them and hide them when people came over - They could quite easily scare small children

[alan potts]

In the photos on site I don't think they look bad at at all now.

The Meade SWA long F/Ls are not that pretty, nore are the UWA long F/L for that matter, but I have had almost full sets of both, I think they are not finished off in design like the big Naglers are.

I am not sure I would buy the Extreme though even if it was silly money. If there was an award for ugly, I think it would walk off with it.

Alan.

[russ.will]

I think they look okay. I mean, if you look at most EPs, the blend of tubes and cones come straight out of the handbook of 1980s concept car design. Televue, ES, etc, might make damn fine EPs, but they don't loose much sleep over the styling. Hell, the extended Nagler zoom always puts me in mind of a choked chicken...

Meade make some lovely looking EPs (although the Extreme maybe proof that they have lost their mojo) and I think Skywatcher and Celestron (I'm thinking Luminos) should be congratulated on comming up with something different.

The same applies to scopes. They're all so resolutely boring. So few even try to do anything on the colour front, WO aside. I suppose the corporate view is that astronomers are small c conservative, but when you look at DIY scopes, there's a colour pallet that would keep an artist happy, so is this true? Manufacturers don't even really bust a nut to incorporate a bit of detail, a bit of texture, into the cast parts where it would be easy.

Roll on the weird and wonderful I say, as long as it's not too Extreme!

Russell

[John]

I'd rather the £'s were spent on the bits I look through rather than those I look at to be honest. My Pentax XW's look rather "odd" when I think about it but the view through them is rather nice

[russ.will]

But they're making those bits anyway, so why not just add a bit of interest? I actually like the look of XWs, but if they applied the level of design to their cameras that the EPs suffer, they'd have been buried years ago.

And don't start my on eye cups. Why are they round and flat? My face isn't.

Russell

[John]

I've a cynical mind that suspects a glossy exterior is intended to deflect attention away from what is inside, which is what matters to me

[alan potts]

I must be boring I like the Televue designs or lack of. Come on they did put a parrot on the parrcorr, very Versace.

Alan

[crazyjedi]

I think the TV design is clean and simple plus green is my favourit colour