Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Another ortho question...

jetstream

By jetstream
in Discussions - Eyepieces

Recommended Posts

John

John

Posted
Posted

The one thing I don't understand is why Baader who make the BCO's no longer make the the BGO when the same factory seem to turn out eyepiece which you feel are the same, I.E. Hutech and maybe even Kasai.

Alan

Yes, that is a little strange Alan. It's almost as if Baader had already decided to drop the Baader GO even before production was hit by the earthquake / tsunami. I was also slightly surprised how quickly an apparently new production facility got up and running in Japan making eyepieces that bear much more than a passing resemblance to BGO's. I did wonder whether they had managed to salvage the machining gear and the patterns and just shifted production to another premises ?.

There is nothing on the eyepieces or their packaging to indicate the source of the BCO's but their finish is very similar to the Hyperions which are Chinese so I think thats a fair bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
John

John

Posted
Posted

That actually can be a problem for someone who just happen to come across one of your review :smiley:

People need to read more of your reviews before having some grasp about how many steps can be between these little difference.

Perhaps we need to put some key definitions at the beginning of each review:

"blows away" = an improvement in one or more facet of performance

"smokes" = under good conditions shows obscure and challenging features a little more distinctly

"in another league" = I've spent a heck of a lot more on these new eyepieces and I have to justify the investment

I'm being a little facetious here of course !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetstream

jetstream

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can't claim to understand it but I wonder what improvements there have been to glass types and coating technology over the 23 years since the paper was written ?

I imagine there has been big improvements,but the paper points out that just fully coating a lens may not provide an improvement-it also points out that improvements can be made if the coatings are matched to glass type and in particular at the lens's joint.

What I got out of it is that just because an EP is fully multicoated(at the cemented surface as well) that there is not necessarily an improvement made.One would assume that when top tier EP manufactures say that the lenses are fully multicoated and use glass matched coatings that an improvement IS made.Televue indicates this in their advertising for the Delos/Ethos line.

If it was economically feasible I would send you my Delos/KK for you to test,if you were willing :smiley: I would really be curious to here what an experienced observer says about the Tak ortho version as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I imagine there has been big improvements,but the paper points out that just fully coating a lens may not provide an improvement-it also points out that improvements can be made if the coatings are matched to glass type and in particular at the lens's joint.

What I got out of it is that just because an EP is fully multicoated(at the cemented surface as well) that there is not necessarily an improvement made.One would assume that when top tier EP manufactures say that the lenses are fully multicoated and use glass matched coatings that an improvement IS made.Televue indicates this in their advertising for the Delos/Ethos line.

If it was economically feasible I would send you my Delos/KK for you to test,if you were willing :smiley: I would really be curious to here what an experienced observer says about the Tak ortho version as well.

Thanks for the interpretation of the paper.

I'm flattered that you would even consider the loan Gerry :smiley:

I'm hoping to get a peek through some Delos eyepieces at the forthcoming SGL star party so I'll keep some notes of those experiences. I do have Ethos eyepieces and the Delos was "born" from those so I guess there will be some similarities.

As someone who has been in the hobby for many years I'm still often amazed how current eyepieces with so many pieces of glass can produce views which are so close to, or equal to, much simpler designs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qualia

Qualia

Posted
Posted

Probably a bit late in replying and probably will utter something completely irrelevant but the more I've been observing this year, the more I'm beginning to feel that TV's 8mm Plossl in the 10" f/5 is probably the finest highish power eyepiece I have for observing Jupiter. There's something about its colour rendition which really makes the planet and its bands stand out. More so, than say, with the 7mm or 9mm BG Orthos. On the other hand, at the moment I find the BG Orthos far sweeter when it comes to viewing Saturn in the early morning. The Orthos seem to offer up a 'cooler', 'cleaner' image which makes them more suited to observing Saturn's ring. I cannot make up my mind what is better on the Moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetstream

jetstream

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Probably a bit late in replying and probably will utter something completely irrelevant but the more I've been observing this year, the more I'm beginning to feel that TV's 8mm Plossl in the 10" f/5 is probably the finest highish power eyepiece I have for observing Jupiter. There's something about its colour rendition which really makes the planet and its bands stand out. More so, than say, with the 7mm or 9mm BG Orthos. On the other hand, at the moment I find the BG Orthos far sweeter when it comes to viewing Saturn in the early morning. The Orthos seem to offer up a 'cooler', 'cleaner' image which makes them more suited to observing Saturn's ring. I cannot make up my mind what is better on the Moon.

I am discovering the coolness/light transmission of my orthos as well.The Nagler 3-6 zoom is much warmer in tone and can bring the belts out better sometimes,but not quite as sharp as the orthos.Under light cloud,with great seeing the ortho seems to perform to the Delos level or just above,but under great seeing with no cloud the brightness of the Fuji's may wash out the belts a bit,while the Delos presents a more contrasted image.As you say Rob,the orthos on Saturn will be excellent,eagerly waiting to try for myself.

Those Televue plossl's sound great and on Jupiter/lunar should excell,not to be overlooked as a premium EP at a resonable price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan potts

alan potts

Posted
Posted

The Televue Plossl is an eyepiece I have never had the pleasure of using and priced as they are will not break the bank to try one, maybe the 11mm for the Mak 180 would be a good one on a good night with Saturn coming into the mix now, if it ever stops raining.

Back to the Tak orthos, I suppose it is possible for them to be a little better than others from Hutech, Kasai etc, even if they if they are made under the same roof. There is always a chance that a higher quality level is specified by Tak, with regards to polishing or coating, there could of course be other differences but I don't know how eyepieces are made.

I think even at the higher price it is one to buy, if only to say I own something made by Takahasi, I don't think one of their scopes will be coming my way any time soon.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted

Takahashi, Kasai HD and Fujiyama orthos are made in same factory in Japan, with same optical quality and different logos and little different body on Tak.

Do you have more info about the Tak ortho? From the links here:

http://www.kyoei-tokyo.jp/shopdetail/018037000005/018/037/X/page1/order/

http://www.kkohki.com/products/fujiyamaOR.html

The field of view and eye relief seems to be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
denis0007dl

denis0007dl

Posted
Posted

Do you have more info about the Tak ortho? From the links here:

http://www.kyoei-tokyo.jp/shopdetail/018037000005/018/037/X/page1/order/

http://www.kkohki.com/products/fujiyamaOR.html

The field of view and eye relief seems to be different.

Well, different sellers put different specifications sometimes.

I will give you example of same eyepieces but with different brands where same eyepieces have different FOV also, and different eye releaf...

On TS site till recently their planetaries had 20mm eye releaf, and after my contact them when I told them that they have 16mm, they put 16mm.

So, nothing more not need to be told.

http://www.vtioptics.com.au/tmb-6mm-planetary-ii-best-value-planetary-eyepiece-just-79-99-delivered-within-australia-why-buy-poor-quality-clones-get-the-real-tmb-grab-a-piece-of-history-as-this-ep-is-eol-and-only-few-left/

http://www.astronomica.co.uk/tmb-6mm-planetary-premium-eyepiece

http://www.astroshop.de/omegon-cronus-wa-6-mm-1-25-/p,32982#tab_bar_1_select

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p159_TS-Optics-6mm-HR-Planetary-UWA---60----1-25--Okular---voll-multiverguetet.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted

I understand that there're many not very exactly stated specifications about same EPs, especially the clone EPs. But for orthos or plössls, especially orthos, the specifications are usually quite exact the fews I've read, BCOs, e.g. the biger FOV indicated some optical design change. I'd rather not see the 4.9mm ER for Tak (4.8mm for Fuji) as typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.