Delos V's Baader Classic Ortho V's ZAO-II @ 10mm

[John]

I've not done this comparison but someone on Cloudynights has had a night with them:

http://www.cloudynig...t/2#Post5799776

Interesting results from a £49 eyepiece, albeit only based on one session.

[Stargazer_00]

Good performance there from the BCO. Certainly as a first impression that's a good report.

[alan potts]

I am fairly pleased I was able to get FLO to put a 6mm BGO away for me, I asked them to charge me for it but they don't seem to like taking money for some reason.

Still I will sort it out in a couple of weeks, not a lot in astronomical terms.

Alan.

[Qualia]

This summary would be my gut feeling on this as well. Whilst selling up my current EPs and getting to grips with the Moonshane 10", I've been doing a fair bit of reading and testing of EPs and the general idea seems to be that something like the Delos 10mm (and for that matter a Pentax XW 10mm) should go just a tad deeper than something like a Radian or Nagler and a decent Ortho like a BGO. Essentially, I figure that when buying premium, one is buying wider-field and more comfortable eye relief.

An interesting summary - other than those on Cloudy Nights - was offered by Alvin Huey who has suggested that for his eyes, the Zeiss ZAO II are his deepest, sharpest, most contrasty EPs, followed by BGOs. On the widefield front, at first preferring the Ethos, it appears that apart from the 13mm, it is the Delos range that he uses in his hunt for faint fuzzies.

Hopefully, I will be getting a Delos 10mm this week and already have a set of BGOs, so will try to make some kind of comparison, although I feel the conclusion will be like so many others: the premium EP is like a BGO but with better eye-relief and wider field, which in my book is no mean feat and should add to hours of comfort and enjoyment.

[John]

Alvin generally uses big scopes compared to most of ours - his regular one is a 22" and someone he observes with regularly has a 48"

One of his theories is that the subtle differences between eyepiece performance become clearer when they are used in larger scopes.

I'd be interested to see if any SGL members who own / have the use of such monsters can confirm this ?

[faulksy]

Alvin generally uses big scopes compared to most of ours - his regular one is a 22" and someone he observes with regularly has a 48"

One of his theories is that the subtle differences between eyepiece performance become clearer when they are used in larger scopes.

I'd be interested to see if any SGL members who own / have the use of such monsters can confirm this ?

so i take it his 22" is just his grab and go set lol

[E621Keith]

Nice review of the BCO. It's a quite an achievement for a budget Chinese ortho to be able to stand up against a Delos which is six times more expensive. Just wonder has anyone done a comparison between the BCO and the Japanese made Circle T. The Circle T cost around £50 just before it was discontinued, so it was in the same market segment as the BCO.

Just wonder how many SGL members have >0.5m scope.

I heard Ollypenrice has a 20" dob, but anyone else?

[alan potts]

No his 22 inch will be his Airline Carry-on scope. Everything is bigger in America.

I mean 48 inches what do you use to look through the eyepiece a helicopter, You would need a lorry to transport it. I bet you can see a few things with though.

Alan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

No his 22 inch will be his Airline Carry-on scope. Everything is bigger in America.

I mean 48 inches what do you use to look through the eyepiece a helicopter, You would need a lorry to transport it. I bet you can see a few things with though.

Alan

A forklift with a sofa attached works just fine

[swamp thing]

1366029973[/url'>' post='1904110']

One of his theories is that the subtle differences between eyepiece performance become clearer when they are used in larger scopes.

I would tend to agree with him. I've compared a few eyepieces in my 10" and also my old 16" both f/4.5, the differences are a bit more pronounced in the larger scope. It could be down to the larger image scale in the larger scopes. I'll do a few more comparisons once the new scopes up n running.

[John]

Nice review of the BCO. It's a quite an achievement for a budget Chinese ortho to be able to stand up against a Delos which is six times more expensive. Just wonder has anyone done a comparison between the BCO and the Japanese made Circle T. The Circle T cost around £50 just before it was discontinued, so it was in the same market segment as the BCO...

I had a 6mm Circle T ortho at the time that I was comparing the BGO's and the BCO's. I spent most of the time comparing the Baaders but I did try the Circle T a few times. I seem to recall feeling that, at 6mm anyway, the BCO seemed to fit into that narrow sliver of a performance gap that lies between the Circle T's and the BGO's, if that makes any sense

[E621Keith]

I had a 6mm Circle T ortho at the time that I was comparing the BGO's and the BCO's. I spent most of the time comparing the Baaders but I did try the Circle T a few times. I seem to recall feeling that, at 6mm anyway, the BCO seemed to fit into that narrow sliver of a performance gap that lies between the Circle T's and the BGO's, if that makes any sense

That's great. Even if the BCO weren't a direct replacement for BGO, it will fill in the gap left by the circle T.

Good minimal glass eyepiece are harder and harder to find nowadays.

[alan potts]

Is it me, but how can we really say that an eyepiece with such a small FOV, albeit well corrected and very sharp can really be compaired to an eyepiece offering a much wider FOV like the Delos. The reason they cost what they do is because they offer extreme sharpness contrast and correction over a very much larger area . If nothing else they are always bigger and use more groups of lenses so would cost more anyway. Yes orthoscopics have there part to play, I have just bough 3 at different F/L's, only for planetry.

Alan.

[John]

If there is a lower cost eyepiece that will match or exceed in some respects the optical performance of a higher priced one in a similar focal length, I for one would like to know about it. OK, I may well decide to buy the expensive one with the other benefits it brings, but I'd still like a complete picture of the options

[E621Keith]

I agree with John. Sometimes I don't need large AFOV offered by expensive wide angles, so I'd be interested in any cheaper alternative. Personally, I found large AFOV distracting when I view planets and prefer the smaller AFOV of ortho.

Weight and portability is another reason why I'd be interested in a small high performance eyepiece. When I travel oversea, I'm more than willing to sacrifice AFOV for smaller size and weight. I took three Circle T with me when I travelled to Japan to see Venus Transit. They were small enough to fit inside my Borg's focuser drawtube and weight almost nothing. There was no way I could fit three LVWs into my pelican case and have room for the two scopes and a GP2 mount. The three ortho were even smaller than my Pentax zoom.

Finally there is details, if a smaller eyepiece shows more details then it shows more details. That is enough to justify buying it over a more expensive eyepiece with a larger AFOV that show less details.

[Stargazer_00]

I'm definitely going to get a couple of Orthos for my collection, no doubt about it. for critical high magification viewing i really want to get that crisp, crystal clear contrasty image. I'd expect mostly for lunar viewing to start with. Going to try get a 6mm BGO. I was just out looking at the moon and found I kept shifting the point I was looking at into the centre field and when it got 30% or so out from centre i was relocating it to centre. I could do that in an ortho. As nice as the extra AFOV is when I was trying to pick out actual detai within craters and such the extra view was actually a little distracting. I could've done with a narrower field. I backed my head off a bit to shrink the visible field and it helped me pick out some extra detail.

[Qualia]

Ay, I agree Stargazer.

There is something really aestheticaly pleasing with a wider-field to frame the object, and sometimes after a while the eyes cry out for a little more comfort (usually at that point I just spark up and enjoy the night sky) but if you want to 'get-in-there', just focus on that object, I can't see anything bettering an Ortho. A good idea (with BGOs being out of production) is to put a little posit note by your computer reading BGO And over the months, as they drop by dripping slow, you can gradually build up a collection at a reasonable price. I also reckon TVP must be the business. I have the 15mm and that does a very nice job of 'getting-in-there' as well.

[Stargazer_00]

Thanks Qualia. I'd considering TVPs but they stop at 8mm and I'd want something with a bit more punch. I have been thinking about a 3-6 zoom Nagler for a while in fact to fill this need I have. A narrower field of view with premium quality that can be exactly tuned to the conditions. Pretty much exactly what im after.

[alan potts]

John and Keith,

I am not disagreeing with what you say, I don't see it as a reaosnable compairison when you consider all aspects of the eyepieces. It may well be the case that nothing on the market can compair with high quality Orthoscopics. I have read posts over months saying how sharp they are with special praise for the Zeiss offerings, the Pentax and of course the more affordable BGO's, The thing I find interesting is if they are as good as people say why are these no longer made, seems odd and sad to me. These eyepieces are for many difficult to use more often with F/L's below 7mm so are never going to be everyones cup of tea. I guess they are not best suited to dob's either

I will after my return see how good the BGO's at 6mm 9mm and 18mm are for myself and can match them against various eyepieces for myself . They may well not be on the money for sharpness but I bet they are a whole lot easier to get on with. It most likely in the end comes down to horses for courses.

Alan.

[John]

......The thing I find interesting is if they are as good as people say why are these no longer made, seems odd and sad to me.....

I guess it's because, for the past couple of decades the trend has been towards wider fields of view and more eye relief (which is a really practical issue for glasses wearers). I've been very carried away by it myself so I'm just as guilty

[E621Keith]

Modern multi-element eyepieces is about designs and execution, while orthoscopic is all about execution. An ortho can be made to a far higher standard for the same amount of money as a wide field design. The cost would be prohibitive if you want to make a wide field to the same standard.

Comfort is another factor. Why torture yourself with a short eye relief ortho when, for the same amount of money, you can buy a comfortable wide field that's 98% as good.

Reason why ortho aren't made anymore:

ZAO: Zeiss made a limited numbers of ZAO when the left the astronomy market. It was like a parting gift for the astro community.

XO: Pentax made some of the finest telescopes, mount and eyepieces until those idiots in Hoya's boardroom decide to axe the astro division. XO and 2" XW just survived, but the XP was dead. When Hoya sold Pentax to Ricoh, Ricoh cared even less about the astro market than Hoya and axed the remaining non-spotting scope eyepiece. There is rumour Ricoh is moving XW's production to South East Asia, it was probably too expensive to move the 2" XW and XO, and the workers at the new factory probably aren't skilled enough to make the ortho.

BGO: The factory was hit by the tsunami

Circle T: Tani (the guy who made Circle T) is nearly 90 yrs old, he deserves a retirement.

[Stargazer_00]

Thanks for that wealth of information Keith.

Is there a possibility the BGO will revive or is that what the HuTech ortho is, the phoneix orthoscopic formely known as BGO?

[E621Keith]

I don't know who made the Hutech ortho, but they do resemble the Kasai ortho/ BGO / UO HD. The Kasai ortho is made by Masuyama who made the BGO.

[alan potts]

In fact Keith the 18mm ortho I have ordered is a Kasai, no BGO , so I will see what it is like. It is for an all out attack on the Sirius with the LX. If this will not show it I am not sure which will be for the bin, the eyepiece or the scope.

Thanks for taking the time to list all the history of the various Orthoscopics, I gather Zeiss are the very best and the Pentax is up there too, interesting that you do not see either in the S/H market, at least I haven't.

Alan.

[E621Keith]

In fact Keith the 18mm ortho I have ordered is a Kasai, no BGO , so I will see what it is like. It is for an all out attack on the Sirius with the LX. If this will not show it I am not sure which will be for the bin, the eyepiece or the scope.

Thanks for taking the time to list all the history of the various Orthoscopics, I gather Zeiss are the very best and the Pentax is up there too, interesting that you do not see either in the S/H market, at least I haven't.

Alan.

I have seen one or two ZAO on ABS, but mostly in the US. ZAO were VERY expensive when they were new, €375 each and you need to buy the whole set set of 4 (€1500). Since it's a rare collector's item as well as having a reputation for being the best, the second hand price for them is significantly higher.

I bought my 2.5 XO used on fleabay, a rare find. The XO cost nearly as much as XW when they were still available, so most people bought the XW instead. They don't show up used because there aren't many of them to begin with. Now it has been discontinued, I doubt many owners will let go of them. The older Pentax 0.965" SMC orthos also worth a lot second hand, I have seen used one go for nearly €500 each!!!