New APM "super zoom"

[johninderby]

Xmas maybe???  😁

[Carl Au]

T

On 20/04/2022 at 13:16, johninderby said:

Xmas maybe???  😁

Nope, Today as it happens: https://www.facebook.com/apmtelescopes/

 

 

[Louis D]

[Voyager 3]

2 minutes ago, Louis D said:

+🍿

[PeterW]

Popcorn must be pretty stale by now. Will be great to hear how this ep performs given the anticipation.

Peter

[Carl Au]

I actually have one on order, I'll let you know if I ever get mine.

Personally as long as it is as good as a BHZ with a 75 FOV I will be very happy. 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Carl Au

[Louis D]

I'll just be interested in how much usable eye relief it has.  I have to unscrew and remove the twist-up eye guard on my Celestron Regal zooms to use them with eyeglasses.  They have about 13mm to 16mm of usable eye relief when used in that configuration.  Given its 45° to 63° AFOV and 26mm eye lens diameter, it should have no less than 21mm of design eye relief.

I don't have high hopes for the claimed 18mm to 20mm ER for this "super zoom" at 75° with what appears to be almost the same sized eye lens since both have an M37 thread around it.  I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

For comparison, my APM Hi-FW 12.5mm (which looks to be made by the same company as the APM Super Zoom) has 18mm of usable eye relief with the eye cup flattened after removing the knurled top ring.  That's with its 36mm eye lens and measured 80° AFOV.  APM claims 23mm of eye relief for it.  So, 5mm overstated.  That could mean the ASZ (APM Super Zoom) has 13mm to 15mm of usable eye relief, which I could totally believe.  If that's the case, I won't be interested in getting one for mono-viewing.

From the claim it focuses 12mm inward of the 13mm Ethos, that puts its focus plane 5mm above its reference plane (shoulder), thus needing 5mm of in-focus (about what is shown in the diagram below, I just can't make out the digit clearly).  That I can live with if true.  But, according to the diagram below, that's in 2" mode.  Unless the 2" skirt is removable, it will require 32mm of in-focus in 1.25" mode according to that diagram, which could be an issue for some scopes or for reaching focus with binoviewers.

[Don Pensack]

I believe Markus had the factory, United Optics, make the top compatible with a DioptRx, which means the eyepiece under the eyecup has to be in the 41.-43.9mm range, not 37mm.

[Louis D]

On 28/04/2022 at 18:32, Don Pensack said:

I believe Markus had the factory, United Optics, make the top compatible with a DioptRx, which means the eyepiece under the eyecup has to be in the 41.-43.9mm range, not 37mm.

Well, here's an actual photo Markus posted recently on CN of the eye lens end:

I'm going to say that the M43 thread is under that knurled ring rather than under the rubber eye cup.  As such, the Dioptrx might not be able to reach the M43 thread because of the upper M37 thread.

Here are images of the Sky Rover version:

That seems to confirm my suspicion that the eye lens (27mm) is way too small to accommodate both a 75° AFOV and 18-20mm of usable eye relief at the same time.  You'd need about a 36mm eye lens as in the Morpheus, not 27mm as here, to do that.

It also confirms my suspicion that the M43 thread for Dioptrx is below the M37 thread, rendering it useless as is.  Perhaps if you screwed an M43 to M37 step down ring onto the M37 thread or a Hyperion / Morpheus® M43 extension to the M43 thread it might work.  I'll bet no one at the factory actually tried to put that CN member's donated Dioptrx on it to check for compatibility.

It also confirms the 2" barrel is nonremovable.  This means a lot of in-focus will be required for 1.25" usage.  That could be a deal killer for BV'ing folks running out of in-focus.

Finally, here's the manufacturer's animated gif looking through the eyepiece while zooming showing constant field (good) and slight SAEP (kidney beaning):

Rectilinear distortion looks well controlled, and edge sharpness appears good as well.  Perhaps it would make a good travel eyepiece for me for nighttime and terrestrial usage as long as I don't mind panning my eye around the field while wearing glasses.

Another image in that thread show the price at 2099 Chinese Yen which equates to about $318, so not much cheaper than APM's $349 price.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Louis D

[Voyager 3]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Well, here's an actual photo Markus posted recently on CN of the eye lens end:

I'm going to say that the M43 thread is under that knurled ring rather than under the rubber eye cup.  As such, the Dioptrx might not be able to reach the M43 thread because of the upper M37 thread.

Here are images of the Sky Rover version:

That seems to confirm my suspicion that the eye lens (27mm) is way too small to accommodate both a 75° AFOV and 18-20mm of usable eye relief at the same time.  You'd need about a 36mm eye lens as in the Morpheus, not 27mm as here, to do that.

It also confirms my suspicion that the M43 thread for Dioptrx is below the M37 thread, rendering it useless as is.  Perhaps if you screwed an M43 to M37 step down ring onto the top it might work.  I'll bet no one at the factory actually tried to put that CN member's donated Dioptrx on it to check for compatibility.

It also confirms the 2" barrel is nonremovable.  This means a lot of in-focus will be required for 1.25" usage.  That could be a deal killer for BV'ing folks running out of in-focus.

Finally, here's the manufacturer's animated gif looking through the eyepiece while zooming showing constant field (good) and slight SAEP (kidney beaning):

Rectilinear distortion looks well controlled, and edge sharpness appears good as well.  Perhaps it would make a good travel eyepiece for me for nighttime and terrestrial usage as long as I don't mind panning my eye around the field while wearing glasses.

Another image in that thread show the price at 2099 Chinese Yen which equates to about $318, so not much cheaper than APM's $349 price.

Thanks Louis great info! 

Where did you find the zoom for 349$? APM website lists it at 395€. 

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, Voyager 3 said:

Thanks Louis great info! 

Where did you find the zoom for 349$? APM website lists it at 395€. 

It's 331.93 € excluding VAT (which is roughly $350) for us Americans.  You have to compare apples to apples because US list prices don't include sales tax since it varies state by state, county by county, and city by city.  Sales tax is an important source of local revenue to help keep down local property taxes.  I have no idea how local governments in Europe get VAT money if they can't directly charge it on sales.  In the US, once the federal (national) government gets its money, states and municipalities have to apply for federal grants for specific projects, not day to day governmental expenses, and hope for the best.

[Mr Spock]

On 29/04/2022 at 18:51, Louis D said:

I have no idea how local governments in Europe get VAT money if they can't directly charge it on sales.

In the UK all sales (with some exemptions, zero rated items and reduced rate items) are charged at 20% VAT. It's included in the price (unless specified ex VAT) so no need to add it. Other European countries are the same.

There's no VAT on exports, but buyers will have to pay VAT on imports, as well as duty.

Usually quarterly a company will complete a VAT return. So, the amount of VAT on sales, less the amount of VAT on purchases, equals the amount paid over to HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs).

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

In the UK all sales (with some exemptions, zero rated items and reduced rate items) are charged at 20% VAT. It's included in the price (unless specified ex VAT) so no need to add it. Other European countries are the same.

There's no VAT on exports, but buyers will have to pay VAT on imports, as well as duty.

Usually quarterly a company will complete a VAT return. So, the amount of VAT on sales, less the amount of VAT on purchases, equals the amount paid over to HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs).

Apologies to the mods and everyone who finds this annoying, going way off topic, but I can't find an answer online, and I have always been curious, so here goes:

How does a local government get a share of the VAT money collected back from HMRC?

Does HMRC keep track of local sales receipts and automatically remit a proportionate amount back to them?  Do local governments have to submit grant proposals (as in the US) with supporting documentation?  Is money automatically sent based on the population of the governed area?  Does the national government simply keep all the VAT revenue for national expenses such as defense?  I literally can't find a simple answer to this online.  All the answers pertain to how to collect and remit VAT, but not how local governments receive their share of VAT revenues.

This is not an issue in the US because all sales tax money collected remains local to the state and county/municipal level (each tacks on a percentage).  As such, we try to shop locally to keep our tax dollars working locally to maintain local infrastructure and services.  There are programs in place to redirect state level sales tax revenues to sales poor areas from sales rich areas, so it's not completely lopsided in favor of wealthy areas.

[Second Time Around]

VAT goes to central government.  HMRC inspects the books from time to time of those businesses whose turnover is above the threshold to pay VAT.

Local taxes are paid by businesses and the public in addition to VAT and paid direct to local councils.  They're based on property values.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Second Time Around

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

VAT goes to central government.  HMRC inspects the books from time to time of those businesses whose turnover is above the threshold to pay VAT.

Local taxes are paid by businesses and the public in addition to VAT and paid direct to local councils.  They're based on property values.

Same here, they're called property taxes.  However, sales taxes (VAT equivalent) allow for a second source of local income to reduce the tax load on property owners.  Sounds like that's not the case in Europe.  It just seems really strange to not keep sales taxes local having grown up with that taxing scheme.  It's why (until recently) interstate sales tax free internet sales have been extremely detrimental to local governments in particular.

[Shimrod]

8 hours ago, Louis D said:

Same here, they're called property taxes.  However, sales taxes (VAT equivalent) allow for a second source of local income to reduce the tax load on property owners.  Sounds like that's not the case in Europe.  It just seems really strange to not keep sales taxes local having grown up with that taxing scheme.  It's why (until recently) interstate sales tax free internet sales have been extremely detrimental to local governments in particular.

Local authorities in the UK have very limited tax raising powers - namely business rates (a property tax) and council tax (residential property tax). All other money is collected centrally (like VAT and income tax) and paid out to councils in the form of grants by central government.

There is a more detailed explanation and comparison to some other countries here:   https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england

The UK is quite different in the tax revenue raising powers given to local governments compared to most other developed countries.

[Space Hopper]

Gentleman, some news.

Marcus has been in touch today, Delivery is expected to be in July. 

And i've already paid for it a year ago so won't have to go raiding the piggy bank, which is good news as its empty.

 

[Louis D]

A comparison to the BHZ over on CN.

Biggest surprise, a sub-70 degree AFOV.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Louis D

[Ags]

66° is still a good FOV for a zoom. Still, rule 1 of engineering is to never overpromise...

[johninderby]

Biggest problem I have with the CN thread it’s all guesswork with a distinct lack actual measurement or testing at night.

Will wait until some proper testing until making up my mind.

Edited May 27, 2022 by johninderby

[Mr Spock]

Poor review. Ignore those figures until someone reputable measures it. All I see there is guesswork.

[F15Rules]

I clicked on Louis' link on CN and having read (some) of the "review" and the subsequent comments and pontificating, I remembered why I rarely visit that forum these days..

Dave

Edited May 27, 2022 by F15Rules

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Poor review. Ignore those figures until someone reputable measures it. All I see there is guesswork.

Never claimed it was a review, merely a comparison.

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Ags said:

66° is still a good FOV for a zoom. Still, rule 1 of engineering is to never overpromise...

But not the first rule of marketing.  I'm dealing with that at work right now.  Marketing and the execs have already oversold our product before it has even been designed.

[Louis D]

Markus confirms sub-70 degree AFOV and has removed the 75 degree claim from the website.  He has offered refunds to those who pre-paid their pre-orders if they want to go that route.  Markus's mea culpa.

Based on CN report so far, aside from the nearly constant ~67° AFOV, the main negatives found are its RD (which is great for terrestrial viewing) instead of having AMD and EOFB (which even high end zooms suffer from).  Eye relief seems good for eyeglass wearers, it's sharp to the edge even in fast scopes, very nearly parfocal throughout its range, and it's comfortable to use with no appreciable SAEP.  1.25" usage may be limited by available in-focus on a particular scope.  This is not an issue in 2" usage.  The zoom motion is apparently quite stiff.  Still no confirmation on Dioptrx compatibility.

It sounds like a winner for spotting scope usage (apparently what it was designed for).  It might be a bit less of a winner for astro usage.