EP advice for planetary - do I go ortho?

[Paul73]

I had the BCO range. They give excellent clarity are very good value. Comfort? The jury is out.

For me, the Delos (£££) or SLV(£) give a more immersive view. More importantly I can spend real time at the eyepiece on planets without discomfort.

Paul

[YKSE]

31 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

I had the BCO range. They give excellent clarity are very good value. Comfort? The jury is out.

For me, the Delos (£££) or SLV(£) give a more immersive view. More importantly I can spend real time at the eyepiece on planets without discomfort.

Paul

I wear glasses, still can see most the AFOV of 10mm BCO, 52° AFOV is a bit wider than SLV's 50°, can't see the drift-time issue?

Wider AFOV is a way to have more observing time, there're other ways too, e.g. tracking mount/platform, or a quality zoom, much to the choice of observors.

[Highburymark]

Reading this thread makes me once again wish that we had group tests of different eyepieces in the astronomy media. Independent, expert analysis - for example rating 8-10 leading planetary eyepieces against each other through the same scopes, on the same targets, under the same skies. I know all the arguments why it doesn't happen - we all have personal experiences of EPs/magazines fear of losing advertising etc. But it would make interesting reading.

[Charic]

10 hours ago, ASSA said:

...............I dont see "Real Ortho" in your signature block. BCO's in many reviews are far far behind the orthos like Fujiyama, BGO, UO (we have a lot of them in Polish community). They are closer to Vixen Plossl than to them. I Dont say any word about Delos because i dont know anythink about them.

Like I said previously........

17 hours ago, Charic said:

............"Which Eyepiece Advice'  type threads are always interesting, folk could discuss the pro's/con's for a year, and still have differing opinions and views (excuse the pun) as regards to which one is the....................? 

We'll just have to agree to disagree! but hey, sometimes that's what forums are about  

[Timebandit]

34 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Reading this thread makes me once again wish that we had group tests of different eyepieces in the astronomy media. Independent, expert analysis - for example rating 8-10 leading planetary eyepieces against each other through the same scopes, on the same targets, under the same skies. I know all the arguments why it doesn't happen - we all have personal experiences of EPs/magazines fear of losing advertising etc. But it would make interesting reading.

 

 

 

 

People are more than welcome to send me their ZAO1 ,ZAO11, Pentax SMC Ortho , TMB supermono , clave ect . I do not class myself as an expert, but am certainly independent. I will give you a honest opinion of what I see through my eyes from the same scope under the same conditions on the same night. But knowing the terrible weather we have in the UK I may need to borrow them for a 12 month period to get suitable conditions?

 

 

 

[25585]

51 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Reading this thread makes me once again wish that we had group tests of different eyepieces in the astronomy media. Independent, expert analysis - for example rating 8-10 leading planetary eyepieces against each other through the same scopes, on the same targets, under the same skies. I know all the arguments why it doesn't happen - we all have personal experiences of EPs/magazines fear of losing advertising etc. But it would make interesting reading.

I have old mags with such reviews. The findings and scores were usually favouring advertisers (as any product reviewed in a publication or site relying on advertising revenue).

CN reviews, are fairly independent, but can be fiercely partisan as well.

[Mak the Night]

4mm Kokusai Fujiyama: Superb contrast and nicely simple, but limited eye relief and FOV.

 

4mm TS Optics Planetary HR: Bright with superb contrast, work well in most refractors and with better FOV. Very similar to Sky-Watcher UWA's, both are made by Barsta.

[YKSE]

1 hour ago, Charic said:

Like I said previously........

We'll just have to agree to disagree! but hey, sometimes that's what forums are about  

You got me confused In which way is mis-interpreting other's review like your own observations/preferences?

[John]

2 hours ago, Highburymark said:

Reading this thread makes me once again wish that we had group tests of different eyepieces in the astronomy media. Independent, expert analysis - for example rating 8-10 leading planetary eyepieces against each other through the same scopes, on the same targets, under the same skies. I know all the arguments why it doesn't happen - we all have personal experiences of EPs/magazines fear of losing advertising etc. But it would make interesting reading.

I suppose thats what I was trying to do with the eyepiece reports that I used to post on here. I'm no expert but with most of the eyepieces involved having been loaned to me and with me not having any interest in the companies or getting paid for the review, I was not subject to any influences other than what I could see though the scope over a number of sessions

The most detailed eyepiece reviews that I've come across have been from the French magazine Ciel et Espace as I recall. They include a whole battery of optical tests on each eyepiece in the group test as well as practical observation results. Way beyond my capabilties

 

 

[Charic]

1 hour ago, YKSE said:

You got me confused In which way is mis-interpreting other's review like your own observations/preferences?

I’d made a general statement as an end piece to an earlier thread, regarding eyepiece choices, and that everyone will have their own views and opinions.
ASSA suggested that Orthos are one of the best EP’s for Planetary viewing.
Having sold three Baader Classic Orthos in favour of my Plossls, ASSA  quoted “ I don’t see “Real Ortho” in your signature block.
Without further discussing the merits of Real, Genuine or Classic Ortho, it was easier to use the quote, 'agree to disagree'.
Its a forum, everyone has their opinions and I respect that, I have no issue(s) with ASSA.
 

[YKSE]

My bad, I forgot ASSA's recommendation was not in your quote.

[mikeDnight]

With a small set of good quality plossls you can enjoy observing every type of object. And, a good plossl can give a very orthoscopic (near perfect) view. 

[25585]

For any nostalgists here there are 4 Japanese-made Fullerscopes branded orthos on ebay; 6, 9, 12, 18.

[Highburymark]

2 hours ago, John said:

I suppose thats what I was trying to do with the eyepiece reports that I used to post on here. I'm no expert but with most of the eyepieces involved having been loaned to me and with me not having any interest in the companies or getting paid for the review, I was not subject to any influences other than what I could see though the scope over a number of sessions

The most detailed eyepiece reviews that I've come across have been from the French magazine Ciel et Espace as I recall. They include a whole battery of optical tests on each eyepiece in the group test as well as practical observation results. Way beyond my capabilties

 

 

John - I have read many of your reports since I rediscovered astronomy 4-5 years ago and they have been instrumental in helping me learn about eyepieces and what to buy - just as Bill Paolini's reviews have on other forums. I was really bemoaning the absence of any expert, scientific 'group' comparisons in UK astronomy magazines or wider media. Btw - I thought the Ciel et Espace reviews were excellent - we need more of them.

[jetstream]

I have a few exceptional orthos - a  10mm BCO, 9mm Circle T, 7mm KK and a 4mm University Optics (Circle T). A few more might make the "exceptional" cut out of the Circle T's... The 18mm BCO is above average and the 6mm BCO just average like my 5mm KK. All of the orthos I own give great views however and would stack up nicely (or better) than many more expensive eyepieces.

In these price ranges there is sample to sample variation IMHO.

Orthos are great if you can get on with them and the tight eyerelief of the shorter FL's give many people problems but there are many great alternatives- DeLites come to mind.

[Mak the Night]

The 9mm Circle T is exceptional IMO. It gets used a lot in my 150mm f/6 Newtonian, usually with a Barlow.

The 18mm BCO's are very good.

I wouldn't say they were any better than my 18mm Astro Hutech ortho' though.

[ASSA]

Since I unleashed offtopic about ortho eyepieces, I will write a few sentences

I want to add, short orthos are only for the summer I found out this morning painfully, I tried to fight Jupiter at 4 am. Almost -10 degrees C and stabbing 30km/h wind, I endured 20 minutes trying to extract some detail from the floating ball that Jupiter was. I did not even recognize the belts. The telescope was waiting for me all night, the eyepiece's were so cold that it was painful to close the eyeball.
I can admit to the mistake I made, I mean BCO. There are reports about ghosts and anodizing and not blackening in the interior, but apparently the axis is sharp as a razor, this does not apply to the edges of the eyepiece that are a bit worse than from more expensive competition (probably through a larger field of view), however, the planets are practically in the center of the field so who cares about edges;)
As a penance, I decided to sell one of my vixen and buy a 2xBCO 18 mm.
Of course, I still think that ortho is one of the best planetary glasses and at their price they are certainly on the podium.
A month ago I had the pleasure of using a suitcase full of pentaxes, naglers and an Orto bucket. MC 127 with 6 mm ortho gave me 250x, maximum magnification and guess what? The image was still sharp, dark but sharp (on Moon).

[YKSE]

51 minutes ago, ASSA said:

I can admit to the mistake I made, I mean BCO.

 admitting mistakes is the way to learn. Have great observing time.

[John]

10 hours ago, Highburymark said:

John - I have read many of your reports since I rediscovered astronomy 4-5 years ago and they have been instrumental in helping me learn about eyepieces and what to buy - just as Bill Paolini's reviews have on other forums. I was really bemoaning the absence of any expert, scientific 'group' comparisons in UK astronomy magazines or wider media. Btw - I thought the Ciel et Espace reviews were excellent - we need more of them.

I'm glad they were some use Mark

One of the things that I learned when comparing eyepieces and recording the results as carefully as I could was that there are more similarities than differences, much of the time.

In some cases I had to work really hard over several sessions to note any differences at all in the optical performance. An example of this was when I had a pile of different orthoscopics to compare and also when I was comparing a TMB Supermonocentric 5mm with a University Optics 5mm HD ortho. When comparing such eyepieces the slight edges in performance only became noticed under the best observing conditions, say 1 out of 4/5 sessions maybe ?. And then I had to use targets that were pushing the optics, conditions and the observer to the limit and the "difference" was most often that one eyepiece made a particularly challenging feature slightly easier to see. Only very, very rarely was it the case where something could be seen in one eyepiece and not in the others. Sometimes one eyepiece was slightly better on, say, Jupiter, and another excelled on Mars or Saturn. And then there are the more personal preferences such as image tone and ergonomics. So many factors - no wonder we reach different conclusions about which eyepieces suit us best !

 

 

 

 

[parallaxerr]

Some more strong arguments to give orthos a try but Johns post sums it all up I think. There's very likely little difference and observers preference wins out. Now I'm thinking about trying orthos again, darn it.

[parallaxerr]

I've been hovering over the buy now button on these as they're the focal lengths I'd like to try. IF I were to try orthos, would these be a safe bet?

I read the Circle T & V favourably commented upon frequently, but can only find a 5mm in the Celestron.

[parallaxerr]

16 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

4mm TS Optics Planetary HR: Bright with superb contrast, work well in most refractors and with better FOV. Very similar to Sky-Watcher UWA's, both are made by Barsta

365Astro have "Lacerta" versions of the same. The price is very attractive but I've read mixed reviews on the design in general. Again, personal preference I suppose.

https://www.365astronomy.com/4mm-the-planetary-uwa-eyepiece-58-degrees-1.25.html

[mikeDnight]

51 minutes ago, parallaxerr said:

365Astro have "Lacerta" versions of the same. The price is very attractive but I've read mixed reviews on the design in general. Again, personal preference I suppose.

https://www.365astronomy.com/4mm-the-planetary-uwa-eyepiece-58-degrees-1.25.html

I had a full set of the original Burgess/TMB versions and they were great! They were comfortable and pure! I've since owned the TMB planetary ll versions and found them to be excellent also, and at the rediculous low price they are a bargain.

[parallaxerr]

16 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

I had a full set of the original Burgess/TMB versions and they were great! They were comfortable and pure! I've since owned the TMB planetary ll versions and found them to be excellent also, and at the rediculous low price they are a bargain.

Yes, I can't help thinking they're worth a punt at that price. More FoV and eye relief than the Orthos too.

[Mak the Night]

4 hours ago, ASSA said:

Since I unleashed offtopic about ortho eyepieces, I will write a few sentences

I want to add, short orthos are only for the summer I found out this morning painfully, I tried to fight Jupiter at 4 am. Almost -10 degrees C and stabbing 30km/h wind, I endured 20 minutes trying to extract some detail from the floating ball that Jupiter was. I did not even recognize the belts. The telescope was waiting for me all night, the eyepiece's were so cold that it was painful to close the eyeball.
I can admit to the mistake I made, I mean BCO. There are reports about ghosts and anodizing and not blackening in the interior, but apparently the axis is sharp as a razor, this does not apply to the edges of the eyepiece that are a bit worse than from more expensive competition (probably through a larger field of view), however, the planets are practically in the center of the field so who cares about edges;)
As a penance, I decided to sell one of my vixen and buy a 2xBCO 18 mm.
Of course, I still think that ortho is one of the best planetary glasses and at their price they are certainly on the podium.
A month ago I had the pleasure of using a suitcase full of pentaxes, naglers and an Orto bucket. MC 127 with 6 mm ortho gave me 250x, maximum magnification and guess what? The image was still sharp, dark but sharp (on Moon).

I'm pretty sure the BCO's just have bigger field stops to aid target location and acquisition. Hence the larger FOV, but as they're ortho's only 42° is sharp.