Baader genuine orthos at astrofest today

[TheMightyKong]

In case people are interested David hinds has a stack of 6mm on his stand today.

[E621Keith]

Thanks for the heads up, will have a look later

[crazyjedi]

I'm after the 9mm...... but they have vanished off the face of the Earth

[John]

I'm after the 9mm...... but they have vanished off the face of the Earth

Someone is offering £85 for one on UK Astro Buy & Sell !!

I've not been able to compare the Baader Classic 10mm Ortho with a 9mm BGO (FLO don't have any either) but I'd be surprised if there was much in it, performance wise. The BGO's do have a very nice fit and finish though.

[alan potts]

Funny enough John if I were going to get a BGO it would be the 9mm one that would appeal to me the most. Going back to Sirius the only scope I have not seen the Pup in is the LX and 9mm would give about X320 ish, can you believe I have tried it with the 9mm Nagler and drawn a blank. That would be a turn up for the books if a BGO did it.

Alan.

[John]

Funny enough John if I were going to get a BGO it would be the 9mm one that would appeal to me the most. Going back to Sirius the only scope I have not seen the Pup in is the LX and 9mm would give about X320 ish, can you believe I have tried it with the 9mm Nagler and drawn a blank. That would be a turn up for the books if a BGO did it.

Alan.

I can believe it Alan. I have to admit that the BGO and the BCO produced a tighter Sirius than my Ethos or Pentax XW's which made spotting the Pup just that little easier with the orthos. Very small differences but this is a very demanding object as you know !.

I love viewing with the Ethos and XW's generally though - superb eyepieces

[alan potts]

I think if I could pick one up for even 85 quid I could afford that on a double up of F/Ls, I just find it a little difficult to come to terms with. I got the impression you did too.

Lets face it, it is a bit of a shock, Ethos accepted as on of the sharpest EP's to hit the market in a long time, you of course have the 5mm Pentax which could even be a tad better and I am reading as I am sure you saw a simple little Ortho cuts the mustard better. I had to read it more than once. I think the real problem is the LX being a SC is not that good on doubles I am sure it is big enough to see this star, I don't have a problem with smaller scopes and it is so much higher in the sky for me.

Do you think there is anything in the simplicity of the Ortho being the reason behind this, less light scatter from fewer elements and a slightly better control of the star disc?

Alan.

[John]

I've felt for a long time that the BGO's are superb performers within the confines of the ortho characteristics of small lenses, a relatively narrow field of view and tight eye relief in the shorter focal lengths.

What has drawn me to the Ethos and XW's (and I guess the Delos is like this too) is what seems to me to be ortho-type sharpness across a much wider field of view maintaining high levels of light transmission while offering more eye relief and a large eye lens to add viewing comfort.

I had previously happily accepted a very small compromise in ultimate sharpness and contrast (really very small) in exchange for the ultra wide immersive fields of the Naglers, UWAN's etc. With the arrival of the Ethos, my discovery of the XW's and now, I presume, the Delos range, I can "have my cake and eat it" as it were. Provided I can find the readies, that is.

Thinking on it, the Sirius challenge is the first occasion where I have seen the Ethos and XW giving anything noticable away to the orthos. Its worth noting it was the BGO's and the BCO's, rather than the Circle-T, that gave the tightest view of Sirius.

Under different conditions, from a different location and with a different observer at the scope, the result may have been different of course

[alan potts]

John,

I guess that just about sums it up. There is one more thing that is possible in that you may not see that again even with the same gear. With regards to Sirius I think Sir Patrick once wrote in a book I read, Sirius can be split with a fairly small telescope on a good night and on another night can't with the worlds largest.

I don't think my eyepiece collection is going on the market just because of one star somehow. Think I will try and get one though, even if it's the new type.

Alan

[crazyjedi]

Someone is offering £85 for one on UK Astro Buy & Sell !!

I've not been able to compare the Baader Classic 10mm Ortho with a 9mm BGO (FLO don't have any either) but I'd be surprised if there was much in it, performance wise. The BGO's do have a very nice fit and finish though.

£85 - a slight rise in price compared to new? If it is mint it's still worth it to me!

As I have said before, I've never been as impressed by any EP as I have been by the BGO's. The fit and finish is first rate too.

I might have to do a similar wanted add like that myself.

If not I might end up with a 10mm BCO as the alternative for me is either the 9mm Nagler T6 or Pentax xw 10mm. Both wallet breakers!

How I wish I could turn back time now. I dallied for ages over the BGO's and finally went for it only after they began to vanish and there were only two FL's left available.

I think I was worried by having tried a Baader Hyperion and finding very disappointing plus I kept thinking "for that price they can't be all that great" or at best they'd be on a par with my Meade 5000 plossls.

I feel pretty stupid looking back now.

All I can say is Dolh!!

[faulksy]

i have a 9mm bgo and its great

[Astro_Baby]

I rook a gamble and bought a load of VTs which I love and also some BGOs. I had a hunch these things would go obsolete about a year ago and started collecting.

Sadly the 7mm VT went early on and I would love one of those. I can wait it out I guess.

[Dunkster]

1360341058[/url'>' post='1820305']

I think the real problem is the LX being a SC is not that good on doubles I am sure it is big enough to see this star, I don't have a problem with smaller scopes and it is so much higher in the sky for me.

Do you think there is anything in the simplicity of the Ortho being the reason behind this, less light scatter from fewer elements and a slightly better control of the star disc?

Why would an SCT not be good on doubles? Lack of diffraction spikes

[crazyjedi]

Why would an SCT not be good on doubles? Lack of diffraction spikes

Who doesn't love diffraction spikes?

I rook a gamble and bought a load of VTs which I love and also some BGOs. I had a hunch these things would go obsolete about a year ago and started collecting.

Sadly the 7mm VT went early on and I would love one of those. I can wait it out I guess.

Wish you'd told me that a year ago

i have a 9mm bgo and its great

That's just rubbing it in!!!

[alan potts]

Dunkster and Crazyjedi,

I have a few scopes of different types, I know they are different sizes but I do not think the SC controls the image of a star as well as the others. I have read this a few times written by other people. On one sites, maybe Cloudy Nights, I read a man in the USA made a hexangonal mask thay he placed over the front element. He claimed it was impossible to split close doubles with the scope, same as mine if I recall, until he did this.

I found the same, if I can split Sirius in a 115mm refractor , why should I not be able to do it in a 12 inch having tried more than 100 times. The man in question claimed the stars like the Pup were hiding in the diffraction rings, may he has a point?

I think it is fair to say that all scopes display their results in a slightly different manner, probablely my refractor at the same aperture to magnification ratio is best. I am not sure but I believe I read that even Pete Lawrence said much the same. However something makes me think he has a 14 inch LX so maybe I am mistaken. I keep meaning to find a piece of cardboard and have a go, I guess the mask would change the difffraction rings to diffraction hexigons.

Any thoughts or am I being silly?

Alan.

[andrew63]

I've felt for a long time that the BGO's are superb performers within the confines of the ortho characteristics of small lenses, a relatively narrow field of view and tight eye relief in the shorter focal lengths.

What has drawn me to the Ethos and XW's (and I guess the Delos is like this too) is what seems to me to be ortho-type sharpness across a much wider field of view maintaining high levels of light transmission while offering more eye relief and a large eye lens to add viewing comfort.

I had previously happily accepted a very small compromise in ultimate sharpness and contrast (really very small) in exchange for the ultra wide immersive fields of the Naglers, UWAN's etc. With the arrival of the Ethos, my discovery of the XW's and now, I presume, the Delos range, I can "have my cake and eat it" as it were. Provided I can find the readies, that is.

Thinking on it, the Sirius challenge is the first occasion where I have seen the Ethos and XW giving anything noticable away to the orthos. Its worth noting it was the BGO's and the BCO's, rather than the Circle-T, that gave the tightest view of Sirius.

Under different conditions, from a different location and with a different observer at the scope, the result may have been different of course

What i have gathered from reading critical reports, that the likes of Zeiss Abbe and Pentax XO and similar exotics, always appear out on top - a notch up even from the BGO. I think i can recall yourself posting a review on an 'exotic' and feeling it had a slight edge also? I guess your experience with Sirius illustrates what this slight edge can at times give you. If your a hardcore lunar/planetary double star observer you would be naturally drawn to these types - finances permitting. But what it also illustrates, that for £50 you can run with the stars...

I think I'd be happy to have a XO in one pocket and XW in the other - and still have the option of wondering what the view would be like through a Zeiss !

andrew

[John]

What i have gathered from reading critical reports, that the likes of Zeiss Abbe and Pentax XO and similar exotics, always appear out on top - a notch up even from the BGO. I think i can recall yourself posting a review on an 'exotic' and feeling it had a slight edge also? I guess your experience with Sirius illustrates what this slight edge can at times give you. If your a hardcore lunar/planetary double star observer you would be naturally drawn to these types - finances permitting. But what it also illustrates, that for £50 you can run with the stars...

I think I'd be happy to have a XO in one pocket and XW in the other - and still have the option of wondering what the view would be like through a Zeiss !

andrew

The "exotic" that I owned for a while was a TMB Supermonocentric 5mm. It did show fractionally better contrast on subtle planetary features when the seeing conditions were first class, ie: only very occasionally !

I sold it because it's field of view of just 30 degrees made it very hard to use with my undriven alt-az scopes, And the eye lens was tiny and very hard to find at night (smaller even than the 5mm BGO). The Supermonocentrics were made by Zeiss for TMB I believe. I bought and sold mine for around £100 but they go for 3-4x that now.

I agree that the £49 purchase price of the Baader Classic Orthos is great value considering the optical quality

[TheMightyKong]

The supermonos were made by Berliner Glas, not Zeiss

[John]

The supermonos were made by Berliner Glas, not Zeiss

Thanks for the clarification - I thought that Berliner Glas was a Zeiss sub-contractor ?.

Maybe not ! - darn high quality eyepieces though

[Dunkster]

1360390942[/url'>' post='1821044']

Dunkster and Crazyjedi,

I have a few scopes of different types, I know they are different sizes but I do not think the SC controls the image of a star as well as the others. I have read this a few times written by other people. On one sites, maybe Cloudy Nights, I read a man in the USA made a hexangonal mask thay he placed over the front element. He claimed it was impossible to split close doubles with the scope, same as mine if I recall, until he did this.

I found the same, if I can split Sirius in a 115mm refractor , why should I not be able to do it in a 12 inch having tried more than 100 times. The man in question claimed the stars like the Pup were hiding in the diffraction rings, may he has a point?

I think it is fair to say that all scopes display their results in a slightly different manner, probablely my refractor at the same aperture to magnification ratio is best. I am not sure but I believe I read that even Pete Lawrence said much the same. However something makes me think he has a 14 inch LX so maybe I am mistaken. I keep meaning to find a piece of cardboard and have a go, I guess the mask would change the difffraction rings to diffraction hexigons.

Any thoughts or am I being silly?

Alan.

The 115 is a fine scope for sure Alan but I've read reports (more than one outlier!) that SCTs don't always disgrace themselves for example, http://www.astromart...?article_id=144

While still a novice, basic logic would lead me to think that the same optical qualities (apo, SCT or otherwise) that can give great detail on bright planets should also lend itself to tight double splitting. But hey, I'm still learning, prolly always will be

Maybe it's the nature of the Dog star itself that makes it tricky?

Back on topic, WC still had a pile of 6mm BGOs when I left this afternoon

[crazyjedi]

Dunkster and Crazyjedi,

I have a few scopes of different types, I know they are different sizes but I do not think the SC controls the image of a star as well as the others. I have read this a few times written by other people. On one sites, maybe Cloudy Nights, I read a man in the USA made a hexangonal mask thay he placed over the front element. He claimed it was impossible to split close doubles with the scope, same as mine if I recall, until he did this.

I found the same, if I can split Sirius in a 115mm refractor , why should I not be able to do it in a 12 inch having tried more than 100 times. The man in question claimed the stars like the Pup were hiding in the diffraction rings, may he has a point?

I think it is fair to say that all scopes display their results in a slightly different manner, probablely my refractor at the same aperture to magnification ratio is best. I am not sure but I believe I read that even Pete Lawrence said much the same. However something makes me think he has a 14 inch LX so maybe I am mistaken. I keep meaning to find a piece of cardboard and have a go, I guess the mask would change the difffraction rings to diffraction hexigons.

Any thoughts or am I being silly?

Alan.

No Alan you're not being silly, you speak a lot of sense. I was being light hearted about diffraction spikes. You are right that different types of scopes have different characteristics and are better suited to different areas of astronomy. Different nights and different seeing conditions will also make a big difference especially when it comes to viewing the more challenging objects :-)

[nightfisher]

I would agree with the above, my 180 should be a superb double star splitter, i wish a certain gent from stoke had attended the astrofest and bought a load of BGO`s..........then i would not keep on seeing his wanted adds on uk astro

[Dunkster]

I fancy a 12.5, where should I post again?

[alan potts]

Dunkster,

What's that a 12.5 inch APO refractor or something even more difficult to get buy.

I am most likely acorss in the UK in May so I might get one of the Classic's from FLO, I am sure they will post to Hull, I want a flattener too, I will not use TS now I would sooner go without.

Alan.

[Dunkster]

I'll take anything you wish to donate Alan :D

That 10" APM at astrofest was a monster