12 mm Delos or 12.5 mm Morpheus

[F15Rules]

4 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Sorry chaps, what does the term on axis mean from a viewing perspective

Hi Baz,

On axis simply means looking straight into the centre of the field of view, or very close to it. Off axis is looking more out towards the edge.

Regarding the Morpheus, I owned one and it was superb. I only sold it as part of fundraising for my Tak scope. I have since bought the 17.5mm Morpheus, the last addition to the range. It too is superb.

I fully respect Alan's views regarding the field stop and know he says things as he sees them. I hope I do the same, and I found the 14mm and 17.5mm Morphs to both have good, sharp field stops. So individuals clearly can and do perceive things differently, as Don says.

I would expect the 14mm Morpheus to show a major gain in views versus your current 14mm. I will likely re-acquire a Morpheus 14 or 12.5mm at some point..probably not both as they are too close in power together I feel

HTH,

Dave 🌝

PS: I should have added that the Morpheus's lack of the wretched TV undercut is a big plus for me!

Edited July 24, 2020 by F15Rules
Additional text info

[steveex2003]

I have all but the 14mm in Morpheus. To my (inexperienced) eyes they all are a little loose at the field stop (compared to on-axis) and the 4.5mm has noticeable EoFB. My favourites (for whatever it's worth) are the 17 and 9mm. I ignored the 14mm as it seemed the most problematic across amateur and more serious reviews. For whatever reason it seems that the 14mm has noticeable detractors across their respective ranges for the Pentax XW, Morpheus and Delite EP's. As and when I can afford, and get around to it, I am confident that the Delos is the 14mm I want to try with the required eye-relief I need.

Edited July 24, 2020 by steveex2003

[F15Rules]

That's interesting Steve. 

I actually sold my 14mm  and 20mm Pentax XWs and replaced them with the Morpheus 14mm and the Vixen LVW 22mm: the 14mm because the Pentax had significant field curvature compared to the Morpheus, and the 20mm as it had even worse FC and after extensive testing vs the LVW, the Vixen simply gave better views to my eyes, especially in contrast, with little or no FC from the Vixen.

(I should add that I strongly distinguish between the 14 & 20 XWs and their high power siblings: 3.5mm, 5mm, 7mm and 10mm - all truly wonderful eyepieces!).

Dave

[Alan White]

We do all see or perceive what we see differently, just ask a group who have just witnessed something!

The field stop sharpness was indeed my perceived not quite razor sharp, but not out of focus to my eyes, if it was one or the other I would have been fine. I am sure to others eyesight they would be. So was most glad that I tried one out.

As to TV undercuts and other makers too grrrrrrrrr!

[John]

I must be odd in this respect as well - I don't mind undercuts !

 

[steveex2003]

2 hours ago, F15Rules said:

That's interesting Steve. 

I actually sold my 14mm  and 20mm Pentax XWs and replaced them with the Morpheus 14mm and the Vixen LVW 22mm: the 14mm because the Pentax had significant field curvature compared to the Morpheus, and the 20mm as it had even worse FC and after extensive testing vs the LVW, the Vixen simply gave better views to my eyes, especially in contrast, with little or no FC from the Vixen.

(I should add that I strongly distinguish between the 14 & 20 XWs and their high power siblings: 3.5mm, 5mm, 7mm and 10mm - all truly wonderful eyepieces!).

Dave

Dave.

The LVW 22 and Morpheus 17 are my favourite EP's of those that I own. Personally, I am enamored with the Morpheus EP's I have. I find the FOV entirely engaging, and by a country mile they are the most comfortable (and forgiving) for eye position of anything I have had a look through. I am aware that the very edge loses a little, but for me it really isnt an issue given how far away from focus that is. I notice the EoFB brightening in the infrequently used 4.5mm immediately (fast scopes). I think if it were in use anywhere near the frequency of the 9, 12 and 17 I could possibly become annoyed by it. The Morpheus gives me all I need, at least for now. If I am honest, and i'm probably showing some at the EP naivety here, I am not sure how much difference I could detect between them and something like Delos on-axis beyond a change in colour temperature perhaps. I am sure the vastly more experienced members here would say different. I have no doubt Tele Vue know exactly what they are doing, and why they are held in the regard they are. I satisfy myself that even If I am getting 75% of Delos performance (and i reckon it's probably a fair bit higher, at least to my eyes) for 1/2 the price then i am winning. Everytime I look through them I am delighted, and that's what it's about for me.
I may well be wrong, and your reviews of the XW14 was very much part of my reading, but the repeated analysis paralysis seems to indicate the 14mm Morpheus, XW and Delite all seem to be degrees of compromise. The minute you hit the considered reports of the Delos 14mm terms like fuzzy field stop and considerable FC all vanish.
 

TL:DR I have spent a little time with various EP's, some I can't afford and I don't feel short changed with my purchasing of 2nd hand or sale priced Morpheus.

Edited July 24, 2020 by steveex2003

[steveex2003]

Can I ask what is the hangup with undercuts?

[jetstream]

59 minutes ago, John said:

I must be odd in this respect as well - I don't mind undercuts !

 

Me too, espc when it saves a very expensive eyepiece from crashing to the ground.

[jetstream]

Not sure if others have the same experience- I find that the differences between eyepieces show up under the best of seeing- at a minimum of Pickering 7. Obviously some of the differences show up at other times ie edge aberrations and distortions but the difference in on axis sharpness reveals itself ^^.

I have had views of Saturn that rival some of the best images (most details) using the sorted out eyepieces.

[F15Rules]

Steve,

The "hang up" with undercuts is, well, that they can "hang up" or "snag" your eyepieces in diagonals and other retaining devices such as adapters (2"-1.25" reducers for example).

Again, this is very subjective, and not everyone perceives things in the same way..but all I can say is that a smooth barrelled eyepiece (and latterly the Morpheus with its' clever "safety kerfs") will never get stuck or snagged in a diagonal or adapter, whereas I have found that many with an undercut do get stuck. Binoviewers are a particular irritant for me if trying to use eps with undercuts.

All of my current main eyepieces have smooth barrels apart from the Morpheus 17.5 which has the safety kerf.

I have always respected Tele Vue as a very innovative and forward thinking company. I haven't used many of their eps (although I remember a Nagler 13mm T6 very fondly), mainly due to their very high prices, and the compulsory undercuts just made it easier to choose other brands.

I think you are right in suggesting that there are less and less and performance differences between premium brands these days, and we are lucky to have such great choices of kit. Just go with whatever appeals most to you and your preferences.

Dave

[John]

7 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Not sure if others have the same experience- I find that the differences between eyepieces show up under the best of seeing- at a minimum of Pickering 7....

 

I agree. Also challenging targets.

[Space Hopper]

1 hour ago, steveex2003 said:

Can I ask what is the hangup with undercuts?

The work of the devil.

Biggest issue is they reduce the compression rings ability to get an optimal purchase on the eyepiece without having to over-tighten it.

For me an undercut on a diagonal nose is a bigger problem. I've known my whole binoviewer rig slip and rotate 180º in the focuser once damp and cold set in.

Most Baader diagonals have a removeable nose though, allowing a smooth bore nose to replace it. Problem solved.

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Space Hopper

[johninderby]

I like the StellaMira solution to undercuts and tapered nosepieces.The self centering twist lock clamps on the StellaMira 80mm f/10 focuser are pretty good.

The clamping arrangement inside the drawtube seemed a little odd at first with the two black compression bands and the central gold band instead of one wide band? I realised that by using two bands that are compressed by the taper inside the gold band one of the black bands can be squeezed down to a smaller diameter than the other thus allowing for the taper or undercut of a nosepiece. You can see in the two photos of the bands that one ring can tighten more than the other on a tapered nosepiece.

The 1.25” eyepiece adaptor also has a 20mm wide clamping band which will clamp pretty well any eyepiece barrel. undercuts. 

[steveex2003]

8 hours ago, Space Hopper said:

The work of the devil.

Biggest issue is they reduce the compression rings ability to get an optimal purchase on the eyepiece without having to over-tighten it.

For me an undercut on a diagonal nose is a bigger problem. I've known my whole binoviewer rig slip and rotate 180º in the focuser once damp and cold set in.

Most Baader diagonals have a removeable nose though, allowing a smooth bore nose to replace it. Problem solved.

 

Yes, that you explain it. that makes perfect sense.  Having only continually suffered from user error, rather than design foibles I can see that my Vixen LVW and Pentax Zoom have undercuts whilst the remaining Baader do not. As said, having no imaging or bino kit i'm afraid only my own stupidity has caused drama thus far. 
We live, and eventually learn. Possibly?

Edited July 25, 2020 by steveex2003

[F15Rules]

I'd also add that having owned both Pentax zoom and Vixen LVWs, they are so good that it would be silly not to consider them if the undercut was the only thing I didn't like about them.

The Vixen LVW 22 is for me almost the perfect eyepiece, even with the undercut!😁

Now..if I could just find a compatible smoothie barrel that would fit the LVW22...😅

Dave

[Alan White]

11 hours ago, Alan White said:

As to TV undercuts and other makers too grrrrrrrrr!

 

11 hours ago, John said:

I must be odd in this respect as well - I don't mind undercuts !

This difference shows how quickly opinions can differ on items of kit, driven by likes and dislikes.
The kit rarely differs by much in performance, but something grates with a particular user and they dislike the item of kit.
Funny old lot us Astronomers!

[John]

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

 

....Funny old lot us Astronomers!

Especially when it's rainy !

[johninderby]

5 minutes ago, John said:

Especially when it's rainy !

And cloudy. 🙁🙁🙁

[Barry-W-Fenner]

I am weak, Just ordered the 14mm Morpheus from FLO 🙂🙂

[Louis D]

Undercuts weren't much of an issue before the advent of compression rings.  However, brass compression rings can become distorted by undercuts and can actually come out of their grooves and wedge the eyepiece in the holder for good.

The narrow bands in cheap, self-centering collets also won't always work with undercuts when they are not at the same depth/location relative to each other.  This causes eyepiece tipping in binoviewers which makes image merging all but impossible.

[Solar B]

51 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I am weak, Just ordered the 14mm Morpheus from FLO 🙂🙂

I don't think you'll be disappointed ... I'm not aware of other EPs that are sharper at

this price point or vastly more for that matter 😃

I agree with all that has been said as yes indeed everyone's perceptions differ slightly 

so one cannot necessarily go on another's account or recommendation , one must try 

said item oneself & only really then will know if they like it or not.

Re undercuts my preference would be without but if I'm using an EP with them then 

I know I'll have to tighten the BF diagonal ring a little more 👍

Brian 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Solar B

[Barry-W-Fenner]

7 minutes ago, Solar B said:

I don't think you'll be disappointed ... I'm not aware of other EPs that are sharper at

this price point or vastly more for that matter 😃

I agree with all that has been said as yes indeed everyone's perceptions differ slightly 

so one cannot necessarily go on another's account or recommendation , one must try 

said item oneself & only really then will know if they like it or not.

Re undercuts my preference would be without but if I'm using an EP with them then 

I know I'll have to tighten the BF diagonal ring a little more 👍

Brian 

From what I have read am really looking forward to trying this eye piece. It is getting a lot of praise on here and some great reviews on FLOS web page. if all goes to plan I will likely purchase a couple more to fill the gaps in my range!

 

Baz

[Don Pensack]

On 24/07/2020 at 11:57, steveex2003 said:

I have all but the 14mm in Morpheus. To my (inexperienced) eyes they all are a little loose at the field stop (compared to on-axis) and the 4.5mm has noticeable EoFB. My favourites (for whatever it's worth) are the 17 and 9mm. I ignored the 14mm as it seemed the most problematic across amateur and more serious reviews. For whatever reason it seems that the 14mm has noticeable detractors across their respective ranges for the Pentax XW, Morpheus and Delite EP's. As and when I can afford, and get around to it, I am confident that the Delos is the 14mm I want to try with the required eye-relief I need.

Last Saturday night, I used the 14mm Morpheus extensively in my 12.5" f/5 (coma corrected f/5.75) dob and used it with glasses to correct my astigmatism.

My wife also looked through and used her glasses, and we were happy to discover neither of us had to refocus when switching positions.

Her almost immediate comment, and I said nothing until she looked, was how incredibly sharp the eyepiece was from edge to edge.

I saw that too, and it yielded superb contrast.  Stars just in from the field stop focused to tiny little points when the center was in focus, indicating the field was very flat.

Bear in mind that my coma-corrected dob has an equivalent 1826mm focal length, so it should be flat.  If the field was curved with that long a focal length, it would have to be pretty curved,

and it was flat as far as both of us could see.  I used it all night to look at a lot of objects (mostly larger, since the true field in that scope is 36'--larger than the full moon).

The measured apparent field is 78°, and field distortion (geometric distortion seen, usually, as angular magnification distortion) is a tiny 0.84%, so very very good, and definitely designed as an astronomical eyepiece.

I saw no EOFB, though the night had a tiny bit of ground haze that made your peripheral vision see the sky brighter than the center of vision, and this showed in all the eyepieces as well that had apparent fields over 75°.

That is not the same as EOFB which, as far as I can tell, this eyepiece does not have in that scope.

 

In comparison, the 17.5mm had a little more sensitivity in eye placement, though this was solely due to an even longer eye relief.  The 17.5mm can be used with glasses even if the extender ring is added.

Due to the lower power, I didn't use it much, so I will spend more time with it later, but it, too, looks promising.

 

BTW, I found an easy technique to tell you if glasses will improve the image at a particular focal length: defocus the star on either side of focus.  If it stays round without glasses, glasses will make no improvement.

If it goes oval as you defocus, but stays round with glasses on, you need glasses at that focal length, or, more exactly, glasses will improve the image quality of stars.

Seeing astigmatism in focus is a different thing, and there is a high likelihood you won't see in-focus astigmatism at a longer focal length than the defocusing test shows.

I see the star image, when defocused, go oval as short as 6mm, whereas I can tolerate the astigmatism in focus up to 12mm.  If I'm looking at planets, I'll use my glasses with 8mm, for example,

but for any other object, I won't.

[JeremyS]

On 25/07/2020 at 00:06, F15Rules said:

the Morpheus with its' clever "safety kerfs"

Did somebody mention 'kerfs'?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I had a Morpheus 14mm for a while, and apprecieated it a lot, but I did notice some (slight) issues with sharpness at the very edge of the FOV which seemed to be due to very slight field curvature in both my C8 and my APM 80mm F/6 (as shown by refocusing). The field stop didn't seem quite sharp, either, and FC is something that really gets to me for some reason, so when a brand new Delos 14mm came up for sale I snapped it up and sold the Morpheus. I almost had the feeling that if they had kept the AFOV down to 70 or 72 deg I might have kept it. In all other respects it had a Delos/XW like quality, and it focused at the same point as my XWs, something the Delos 14 won't do (my Delos 6 and 8 have been adapted with parfocalizer rings, but that won''t work for the 14)