Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Baader Orthoscopic Vs Hyperion

brympton

Recommended Posts

brympton

brympton

Posted
Posted

I would like to add a 5mm eyepiece to my collection and have narrowed down the choice to either the Baader Hyperion or the Orthoscopic. I have a Japanese (unknown brand) 9mm Ortho that initially I did not like due to the lack of eye relief but it’s superior definition and contrast is winning me over. My question is would I be sacrificing performance for comfort/FOV by going for the Hyperion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

My question is would I be sacrificing performance for comfort/FOV by going for the Hyperion?

Yes.

After saying that, the Hyperions are 'much' more popular so I guess comfort wins. I have a number of orthoscopics and some modern wide-field eyepieces and use both. For lunar, planets and globulars the orthoscopics are King :king: For pretty-much everything else, and when using the Dob', the wide-fields are great.

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

I've used both eyepieces (Steve gave me a Baader 5mm ortho to try) and the the short answer is, yes, you would be giving up performance esp. on planets and the moon.

There may be a point where the comfort of the Hyperion outweighs, and gives you a better viewing experience, than the orthos though.

As a general purpose eyepiece I'd probably go with the Hyperion but the Baader will give better views if you don't mind the FOV and eye relief.

Just my 2p. :undecided:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
argonaut

argonaut

Posted
Posted

Having had a set of Orthoscopics now for a few weeks from Steve I would go with the Ortho. I do have widefield UWAN's but the clarity of the Ortho really makes a difference.

I did split the double-double with the 5mm (120x) and it was a good split. I can certainly recommend them. To be honest that was the first time I had split it.

Argonaut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

Orthoscopics are exceptionally good.

If Ernst Abbe (a designer for Carl Zeiss) had designed them today they would no doubt be selling for over double the price and be the darlings of all the forums. As it is they were designed in the 1800's (for taking accurate measurements from microscope slides) so pass under most peoples radar undetected and are surprisingly affordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

It took me a little while to get used to my orthoscopics. The colour is a little cold. That's because the natural colour isn't being warmed up by extra layers of glass. After a while I really started to appreciate the really cleam views these orthos deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I'm bucking the trend a bit here I guess but personally I'd go for the longer eye relief and wider field of view at the expense of ultimate performance. I find that viewing comfort means a lot to me - I've found that I can see more with "relaxed eyes" and, as a dob user, wide field means more relaxed tracking as well. In my case I've taken it a bit further than the Hyperion as I use a 5mm Type 6 Nagler.

I have tried a number of short FL orthos (classics and the later HD types), plossls (Meade 4K, 3K and Tele Vue) and a Celestron Ultima 5mm over the years and I honestly reckon now that viewing comfort is definately worth having at the expense of a little (and it is very little in the case of the Nagler T6's IMHO) ultimate performance. My current preference might be linked to my eyes getting older of course :undecided:

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

I think most people would agree with you and I wouldn't be without my wide-field eyepieces but it is still worth having an orthoscopic or two for when you want to squeeze the last ounce of detail out of an object, particularly as they can often be found secondhand (Japanese-made ones are best).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I think most people would agree with you and I wouldn't be without my wide-field eyepieces but it is still worth having an orthoscopic or two for when you want to squeeze the last ounce of detail out of an object, particularly as they can often be found secondhand (Japanese-made ones are best).

Those Japanese "volcano top" orthos are amazing bargains Steve - I've seen them go for less than £20 so it would be feasible to pick up a few 2nd hand to have as an alternative to widefields. Until comparatively recently Telescope House were selling classic orthos new at £30 and I think they were the same as the much applauded University Optics orthos.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
russ

russ

Posted
Posted

Personally i would go with comfort rather than outright performance. Always been my preference, long before the latest craze of widefield eyepieces. I preferred a high powered set of Vixen Lanthanums over the equivelent Ortho.

They didn't really offer a much bigger field of view compared to an Ortho (50deg vs 40deg) but the 20mm eye relief made longer viewing times a pleasure.

Worth noting that i also had Orthos but only in focal lengths 9mm and above. I would like to add an Ortho or two back into my collection but only the 9mm and 12mm.

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the replies all. I am still undecided at the moment but ultimately may have to budget for both :undecided:

Keep an eye on the 2nd hand market - if you buy carefully you can often recoup most if not all of your outlay by selling on if the eyepiece does not suit you. There is always a market for Hyperions and Orthos in decent condition.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neon

Neon

Posted
Posted

I use both John and I'd say it's a case of horses for courses. Both are indispensible for me since I use a manual alt-az mount. I use my 24mm Hyperion to locate planets and then my Japanese 6mm Ortho to get a close look. For planets and specific moon features, the ortho rules, but for everything else I use my Hyperions.

I guess it depends on what you intend to look at.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

My perfect set up.

On one side of my ep rack my Baader Hyperions on the other side my Baader Orthos.

I've still got a long wat to go but one day...

I've got the rack of Hyperions but my ortho collection is a rag tag "Heinz 57 varieties" setup. TBH though, I prefer the older volcano tops over the Baader format, I find the eye position a lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc

Doc

Posted
Posted

Thats interesting Gaz.

I have few hyperions but no ortho's as yet but was going to buy a couple for xmas.

I've looked through a few Baader Ortho's and they are pretty sharp especially on the moon.

Any make you recommend Gaz

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.