Eyepiece Designs and Sacrifices

[Astrobits]

Rather dear, yes I thought so too.

But prices haven't changed that much since then. Also advertised in the Sept 1989 issue is the 12mm Nagler type2 at $249, and the Celestron Powerstar 111 ( C8 with wedge, tripod and hand controller ) for $1498 ( Lumicon ad ). Adorama was selling Celestron Plössls at $67.95.

It is fascinating to flick through old copies of mags and see what was being offered at the time.

Nigel

[alan potts]

Nigel,

Magazines,I don't disagree, I just wish I had the time, just been mixing concrete, I don't know what is wetter the concrete or me. I guess Keith was right, what is the point of an eyepiece that we believe would only work on one scope, the Paracorr was the way to go.

Alan.

[bingevader]

I couldn't find the good looks or great personality options!

Cheers

[russ.will]

Quite. How many people (on this very forum) have dissed the Meade Extremes, without ever actually applying an eyeball to one?

Russell

[E621Keith]

Quite. How many people (on this very forum) have dissed the Meade Extremes, without ever actually applying an eyeball to one?

Russell

If it is better than Ethos, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. Otherwise, ES100 is cheaper and much better looking.

Most of our comments about the Meade criticise it's external appearance, not optical performance. I don't think there is anybody seriously thinking of buying one of those, right?

[John]

If the Meade Extremes cost less than the ES 100's then I suspect folks would overlook their appearance.

[E621Keith]

True, except they aren't

US Prices for Meade XWA, 9, 14 and 20mm are $300, $400, $500

US Prices for ES100 9, 14 and 20mm are $250, $300, $300

[Stargazer_00]

And then look at the weights. That tractor tyre cant be helping.

[alan potts]

How we got on to Meade Extremes I don't know but I note on the TS website they are priced very high indeed (799 Eu for 20mm ), they must be looking to really move some.

Alan.

[John]

True, except they aren't

US Prices for Meade XWA, 9, 14 and 20mm are $300, $400, $500

US Prices for ES100 9, 14 and 20mm are $250, $300, $300

Yes I know that - it was a hypothetical observation

[russ.will]

True, except they aren't

US Prices for Meade XWA, 9, 14 and 20mm are $300, $400, $500

US Prices for ES100 9, 14 and 20mm are $250, $300, $300

This only holds until,the ES summer sale ends, although I won't be holding my breath for that one!

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry.

[John]

This only holds until,the ES summer sale ends, although I won't be holding my breath for that one!

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry.

Are we still in the ES 2012 Summer Sale ?

[alan potts]

John, and Russell,

I think it is like a closing down sale I saw on a shop in York, it was closing down for 5 yeaars before it did.

Alan.

[russ.will]

Are we still in the ES 2012 Summer Sale ?

Yes. They started it just before the summer, but as summer never definitively started last year, they've let it run and run and....

Me? I'm still waiting for the crystal clear nights this winter promised, to test the EPs I bought in the summer sale. Given the new frac and mount I've just received shipping notification of, I'm not getting my hopes up until 2014.

Russell

[E621Keith]

I am sure the ES 2012 summer sale will end soon...

... and then immediately replace with ES 2013 Summer sale.

[Stargazer_00]

It does seem a perpetual sale doesn't it? It's not a bad thing though, the more people get access to wide field views the more likely the prices across other brands will fall and then better quality views will become more accessible for us all in the future I hope

[russ.will]

If the ES sale prices continue and are sustainable in perpetuity, then it does rather raise the question why a) they were that more expensive in the first place and why the more expensive alternatives are that much more expensive.

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry.

[Stargazer_00]

i'm sure I read somewhere that Meade were in trouble financially not long ago. Are ES and Meade the same company? I thought that they were and this sale always struck me as a bit of a liquidiation of sorts.

[russ.will]

Meade have some products manufactured by JOC. JOC are the majority owner of ES/Bresser. ES/Bresser now own Meade Europe, the importer of Meade and Coronado into Europe. The similarity between some product lines is due to the common manufacturing source, rather than a direct link between the two companies.

I wouldn't be surprised if JOC bought Meade, once it's financial stock has fallen far enough.

Russell

[E621Keith]

i'm sure I read somewhere that Meade were in trouble financially not long ago. Are ES and Meade the same company? I thought that they were and this sale always struck me as a bit of a liquidiation of sorts.

No Meade USA and ES are two different company. However, one of ES founder is a ex-Meade executive. ES itself is a brand name of JOC. When Meade USA was in trouble a few years ago, they sold Meade Europe to generate cash. Meade Europe was bought by its management and JOC, so you can say JOC owns Meade EU, ES and Bresser.

Only time will tell if Meade US will follow the same fate as Celestron. Personally, I would like to see JOC (using Bresser brand) coming into the entry level market and end Synta's monopoly in this market segment.

[Naemeth]

I'm back .

Interesting answers from everyone - and nothing much has changed in terms of most popular characteristics since I left.

I'm sure astigmatism can be corrected in an eyepiece, but I'm not sure (even though I know none of you were asking about it...) anyone would want it. To get rid of astigmatism you usually apply the opposite astigmatism to the prescription to remove it (+2.5 on an -2.5 astigmatic eye). I assumed Coma was the same in that the Pretoria would correct F/4 very well, but go too far the other way with slower scopes, I guess not..

Something new learned for today

[E621Keith]

I'm sure astigmatism can be corrected in an eyepiece, but I'm not sure (even though I know none of you were asking about it...) anyone would want it. To get rid of astigmatism you usually apply the opposite astigmatism to the prescription to remove it (+2.5 on an -2.5 astigmatic eye). I assumed Coma was the same in that the Pretoria would correct F/4 very well, but go too far the other way with slower scopes, I guess not..

Naemeth,

I think you are confusing two types of astigmatism.

Astigmatism in the eye is caused by the lens in the eye being slightly elliptical. This causes light from different axis to focus at different position, but the direction of the axis is the same across the field. This can be easily corrected by using a opposite lens, such as those found in TV Dioptrx and spectacle. This type of astigmatism is rare in modern optics, but common in the eye.

Astigmatism in eyepiece is different, it is symmetrical and spreads tangentially or radially around the centre. One of the astigmatism axis always points towards the centre and the other aligned with the tangent. Therefore the distortions at 3 and 9 o'clock position will have the same direction, but 12 and 6 o'clock will be 90deg out.

This type of astigmatism is much harder to correct.

http://toothwalker.o...stigmatism.html

http://www.telescope...errations_1.htm

[Naemeth]

Thanks for the info Keith, definitely something to read up on .

[Astrobits]

Sorry to be a bit pedantic but the question on the OP was "What is the most important characteristic?". Not a selection but just THE most important. I am surprised that the answer to that question from the respondents is not 100% sharpness ( or resolution ). After all who would buy an eyepiece that was not sharp regardless of any other wonderful properties that it might have.

" Yeah, I can't see the craters on the moon; the bands on Jupiter; is that really a disc round Saturn, I thought there were three blobs: star clusters are just fuzzy blobs BUT it has got terrific colour control and the contrast is just great"

Would anyone buy such an eyepiece?

I think that some of the respondents have answered a slightly different question " What are the most important characteristics". It might have been useful for voters to be able to give each characteristic a value of desirability from 1-10. I answered the original question and made only one vote - for sharpness, but other characteristics are also necessary before an eyepiece becomes useable and desirable, as much space in SGL testifies.

Nigel

[E621Keith]

Sorry to be a bit pedantic but the question on the OP was "What is the most important characteristic?". Not a selection but just THE most important. I am surprised that the answer to that question from the respondents is not 100% sharpness ( or resolution ). After all who would buy an eyepiece that was not sharp regardless of any other wonderful properties that it might have.

" Yeah, I can't see the craters on the moon; the bands on Jupiter; is that really a disc round Saturn, I thought there were three blobs: star clusters are just fuzzy blobs BUT it has got terrific colour control and the contrast is just great"

Would anyone buy such an eyepiece?

I think that some of the respondents have answered a slightly different question " What are the most important characteristics". It might have been useful for voters to be able to give each characteristic a value of desirability from 1-10. I answered the original question and made only one vote - for sharpness, but other characteristics are also necessary before an eyepiece becomes useable and desirable, as much space in SGL testifies.

Nigel

It depends. I found contrast more important than sharpness on planets. Sharpness allows you to distinguish between finely spaced points/object, contrast allows you to distinguish between colours and intensity. If your eyepiece has good sharpness but low contrast, you will see the sharp disc of Jupiter, but the disc would be washed out and the bands would be barely visible because their colour looks very similar to the rest of the disc.

Sharpness is relatively unimportant when it comes to DSO because you would be using averted vision anyway. Transmission and contrast wins here.

Sharpness is very important when it comes to splitting double.

As such, the most important characteristic changes depending on what you want to do with your eyepiece.