Baader Morpheus range - General chat

[LDW1]

1 hour ago, badhex said:

This has been a nice gentle thread so far and it would be a shame for it to become otherwise. To be fair I think many of us, half intelligent or otherwise, genuinely do seek advice and real, practical feedback from others more experienced, and at the very least those who have actually used an EP to give some feedback. YMMV as they say, but I don't personally share the observation that you are alluding to. 

Thats my story and I'm stickin to it ! Thats based on many years of this .......... ,  with some you can never make a right decision unless you agree with some more ........ !   PS:  I just lucked in over quite a few years, I guess.

Edited August 11, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

10 minutes ago, Louis D said:

If you had 2.0+ diopters of astigmatism in your eyes as I do, you'd be in the same position as me unless you wore toric contacts at the eyepiece or managed to get on with Dioptrx.  As it is, the view of stars in eyepieces with a 1mm or larger exit pupil look like star bursts to me.  This pretty much negates having finely figured optics.

Very unfortunate !

[LDW1]

2 hours ago, badhex said:

This has been a nice gentle thread so far and it would be a shame for it to become otherwise. To be fair I think many of us, half intelligent or otherwise, genuinely do seek advice and real, practical feedback from others more experienced, and at the very least those who have actually used an EP to give some feedback. YMMV as they say, but I don't personally share the observation that you are alluding to. 

I mean calculated to 2 decimals just to prove one is wrong, really ?  I guess we aren't fellow astronomers, adults if you will or maybe just ........ !  Gentle ?

Edited August 11, 2023 by LDW1

[johnturley]

19 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

One clarification: the measured field stop in the 17.5mm Morpheus is 21.75mm and the apparent field 72°.

That's a case where the eyepiece that was actually released, 3 years after the other focal lengths, was different than what was planned.

I tried holding my 17.5 and 12.5mm Morpheus eyepieces side by side and the APFOV of the 12.5 mm does appear to be slightly larger. I noticed that when I got my  Stella Lyra 30mm UFF eyepiece the APFOV appeared similar to the 17.5mm Morpheus, definitely not the 6 degrees smaller it would be if the APFOV of the 17.5mm Morpheus was the full claimed 76 degrees. 

[badhex]

1 hour ago, johnturley said:

I tried holding my 17.5 and 12.5mm Morpheus eyepieces side by side and the APFOV of the 12.5 mm does appear to be slightly larger. I noticed that when I got my  Stella Lyra 30mm UFF eyepiece the APFOV appeared similar to the 17.5mm Morpheus, definitely not the 6 degrees smaller it would be if the APFOV of the 17.5mm Morpheus was the full claimed 76 degrees. 

A tiny bit disingenuous it still claims 76° on the barrel really, but it does seem that there is often some variance in AFOV throughout EPs in the same range, especially if the design varies slightly for longer/shorter FLs; that said it is not always printed on the barrel! Actually worked out quite well for me in the end though, as I've found around that ~68-72° AFOV mark to be most comfortable for me personally. Yet another reason for me to buy the 30mm UFF, despite my wallet saying I definitely should not! 

[bosun21]

26 minutes ago, badhex said:

A tiny bit disingenuous it still claims 76° on the barrel really, but it does seem that there is often some variance in AFOV throughout EPs in the same range, especially if the design varies slightly for longer/shorter FLs; that said it is not always printed on the barrel! Actually worked out quite well for me in the end though, as I've found around that ~68-72° AFOV mark to be most comfortable for me personally. Yet another reason for me to buy the 30mm UFF, despite my wallet saying I definitely should not! 

Agreed, but the 17.5mm Morpheus is still my most used eyepiece and is extremely comfortable.

[LDW1]

38 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

Agreed, but the 17.5mm Morpheus is still my most used eyepiece and is extremely comfortable.

If the eyepiece works and the views are great on a great nite who really cares about a number ? And as well why would a very reputable company such as Baader purger their  reputation by continuing to falsely state a FOV that has been discovered wrong by the ' real experts ' ?  I can probably tell you why, lol !    PS:  Think about it for awhile !  PPS:  Does that mean that all the fellow astronomers who really like looking through that ep, the wide views, the comfort just plain don't know what they are saying, I guess thats why I used ' half intelligent ' as a description if the we lovers of the 17.5 etc don't actually know.  Sorry !

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

It gets so tiring hearing / reading the same drivel from the same experts denigrating some piece of astro gear everytime there is a positive thread on whatever that is soliciting important comments not minute number differences that mean nothing when actually looking through your scope. Maybe some should work for the company to correct these, maybe, errors or at least take it upon themselves to tell them their mistake, that would be to all or benefit. It happens frequently, especially across the great divide at CN, I witnessed many attacks over 10 years and over 10,000 posts and many threads.  It does get tiring to many as I.  PS:  Maybe we should just hand over our $'s and let those spend it ?

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

Then again who am I to say anything, coming from a so called ' shill ' for Svbony a great up and coming company heading to a similar level as Baader, my favourite !  LOL !

[Don Pensack]

22 hours ago, Louis D said:

I know I don't make a purchase until there is a certain amount of positive feedback from folks who know what to look for in eyepieces and report accordingly.  Early on, I made some boneheaded eyepiece choices by not doing my due diligence first and then weighing the pros and cons.

A recent example for me would be a desire to purchase the 23mm Pentax XW-85 to replace my 22mm Nagler T4, but many folks have reported that it is tight to use with eyeglasses, so I've held off.

Effective eye relief from rubber eyecup up on the Pentax 23mm is 12mm.  On the 22mm Nagler, it's 16mm.  Most glasses wearers could use the latter.  Very few glasses wearers could use the former.

[Don Pensack]

3 hours ago, johnturley said:

I tried holding my 17.5 and 12.5mm Morpheus eyepieces side by side and the APFOV of the 12.5 mm does appear to be slightly larger. I noticed that when I got my  Stella Lyra 30mm UFF eyepiece the APFOV appeared similar to the 17.5mm Morpheus, definitely not the 6 degrees smaller it would be if the APFOV of the 17.5mm Morpheus was the full claimed 76 degrees. 

Measured apparent fields:

30mm UFF  70°

17.5mm Morpheus  72°

12.5mm Morpheus  78°

[Don Pensack]

13 hours ago, LDW1 said:

I mean calculated to 2 decimals just to prove one is wrong, really ?  I guess we aren't fellow astronomers, adults if you will or maybe just ........ !  Gentle ?

You said, in an earlier post;

"I bought my first Ultima Edge, 15mm, because I wanted an eyepiece exactly half way between my Morph 17.5 - 12.5 mm eps. thus I skipped the 14mm and then bought several more Edges after that."

I only mentioned that either 14mm or 15mm would have been half-way between because 14.5mm is half way between.  It wasn't a criticism, merely pointing out that 14mm would have been fine as an in-between, just as 15mm is.

There are only a small number of eyepieces that have ever come in a 14.5mm focal length.

 

Experimentation is how you learn about eyepieces.  Buying and trying is how you learn what you like.  I must be in favor of that because I've owned over 360 different eyepieces over the years.

It sounds like you've done your fair share of that as well.

 

[LDW1]

3 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

You said, in an earlier post;

"I bought my first Ultima Edge, 15mm, because I wanted an eyepiece exactly half way between my Morph 17.5 - 12.5 mm eps. thus I skipped the 14mm and then bought several more Edges after that."

I only mentioned that either 14mm or 15mm would have been half-way between because 14.5mm is half way between.  It wasn't a criticism, merely pointing out that 14mm would have been fine as an in-between, just as 15mm is.

There are only a small number of eyepieces that have ever come in a 14.5mm focal length.

 

Experimentation is how you learn about eyepieces.  Buying and trying is how you learn what you like.  I must be in favor of that because I've owned over 360 different eyepieces over the years.

It sounds like you've done your fair share of that as well.

 

You knew exactly what / how you were saying it, lol !   PS:  And why, lol.  All based on our discussions in the long past, lol.

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

If the eyepiece works and the views are great on a great nite who really cares about a number ? And as well why would a very reputable company such as Baader perjure their  reputation by continuing to falsely state a FOV that has been discovered wrong by the ' real experts ' ?  I can probably tell you why, lol !    PS:  Think about it for awhile !  PPS:  Does that mean that all the fellow astronomers who really like looking through that ep, the wide views, the comfort just plain don't know what they are saying, I guess thats why I used ' half intelligent ' as a description if the we lovers of the 17.5 etc don't actually know.  Sorry !

I use a 17.5mm Morpheus myself.  Almost every line of eyepieces varies in its apparent field over the series.  Why would you consider it a criticism if you make positive comments about an eyepiece and someone else mentions its test bench measurements?  Most people won't care, but some will.  That doesn't mean the people who own and love the eyepiece (I certainly do) will somehow need to get rid of it.  There is no harm in knowing the facts about an eyepiece.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Don Pensack

[LDW1]

38 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I use a 17.5mm Morpheus myself.  Almost every line of eyepieces varies in its apparent field over the series.  Why would you consider it a criticism if you make positive comments about an eyepiece and someone else mentions its test bench measurements?  Most people won't care, but some will.  That doesn't mean the people who own and love the eyepiece (I certainly do) will somehow need to get rid of it.  There is no harm in knowing the facts about an eyepiece.

Especially 14.58 mm, lol ! I stick by what I have found out, have seen over many years.  Let me ask you once again, you being an ep expert,  if the Baader 17.5mm ep is out by that much in their measured FOV why hasn't someone, of consequence, notified them of this large, questionable info error that they continuously foist up us all ?  We would all be greatful and they must be a concerned corporate citizen, right.

[LDW1]

51 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I use a 17.5mm Morpheus myself.  Almost every line of eyepieces varies in its apparent field over the series.  Why would you consider it a criticism if you make positive comments about an eyepiece and someone else mentions its test bench measurements?  Most people won't care, but some will.  That doesn't mean the people who own and love the eyepiece (I certainly do) will somehow need to get rid of it.  There is no harm in knowing the facts about an eyepiece.

Please note that the facts are your facts and a few others but not every great fellow astronomers facts, maybe they like to rely on a great company like Baader, surely they aren't crooks or only half intelligent being around so long with quite a diverse product line.  If so who do we all trust these days, its important for us to know.    PS:  I stand fully behind my 17.5, 12.5, 9.5, 6.5 Morpheus numbers.

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[johnturley]

Last night I made a comparison between my 17.5mm Morpheus and my 16mm Type 5 Nagler (82 degree APFOV) while viewing the M13 Hercules Cluster, the 2 eyepieces having almost exactly the same actual field of view, as the larger APFOV of the Nagler is more or less offset by the slightly lower magnification of the 17.5mm Morpheus.

Both eyepieces provided a fairly sharp view across the entire field, but I found the viewing experience more comfortable with the Morpheus, and easier to view the whole field of view. In addition the Morpheus has a much more sharply defined field stop (appears bluish in daylight) compared to the Type 5 Nagler, where it appears quite mushy and yellowish (in daylight), similar in fact to what you get with Explore Scientific 82 degree series, and sometimes I understand referred to as the 'Ring of FIRE'. The Type 6 Naglers (which only go up to 13mm fl) on the other hand, have a sharply defined field stop similar to that of my 17.5 and 12.5 Morpheus (I assume that the others in the Morpheus range are the same).

One advantage of the Naglers however, is that in 1.25 in barrels (including the 3-6mm Zoom), together with the 24 and 19mm Panoptics, they are all approximately parfocal, whereas the Morpheus and Explore Scientific 82 degree ranges are not. I find having a parfocal range particularly useful when viewing planets, especially Mercury and Venus in daylight. In short I use my Morpheus eyepieces more for deep sky objects, and the Naglers for planets.  

One recommendation I would make to all users of Morpheus eyepieces, is to fit the Baader M43 extension ring between the eyepiece and the rubber eyecup, as this largely avoids the large front lens element being fouled by grease from eyelashes.

Edited August 12, 2023 by johnturley

[badhex]

3 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Agreed, but the 17.5mm Morpheus is still my most used eyepiece and is extremely comfortable.

Oh, 100% agree. Also by far my most used and favourite eyepiece. I absolutely love the size of the eye lens and in fact have since almost exclusively bought EPs with a similar or same size eye lens, just because it's so comfortable. 

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

Especially 14.58 mm, lol ! I stick by what I have found out, have seen over many years.  Let me ask you once again, you being an ep expert,  if the Baader 17.5mm ep is out by that much in their measured FOV why hasn't someone, of consequence, notified them of this large, questionable info error that they continuously foist up us all ?  We would all be greatful and they must be a concerned corporate citizen, right.

The apparent fields of the Morpheus line are:

17.5--72°

14, 12.5, 9, 4.5--78°

6.5--79°

These are measured using lab instruments by Ernest Maratovich and listed on his website here:

http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1483#p41976

As to why Baader would not show the exact measurements, I cannot say.

Probably for the same reason TeleVue doesn't show their Nagler line varies from 78° to 84°

Actual measurements of most lines show the apparent fields vary over around a 4-5° range.

And it really doesn't matter much in the field, does it?

[badhex]

27 minutes ago, johnturley said:

One recommendation I would make to all users of |Morpheus eyepieces, is to fit the Baader M43 extension ring between the eyepiece and the rubber eyecup, as this largely avoids the large front lens element being fouled by grease from eyelashes

Agreed, I needed to adjust both of my Morpheus (and also the APM Superzoom) with the M43 ring to also get best eye placement. For a while I was worried I had like super sunken eyes or something 😂

There was an interesting discussion about it a while back as I wondered if others had the same experience:

 

[bosun21]

26 minutes ago, johnturley said:

One recommendation I would make to all users of |Morpheus eyepieces, is to fit the Baader M43 extension ring

I use the M43 extension ring on the 4.5mm and the 6.5mm only. I find that it places my eye more or less in a comfortable viewing position. Regarding the others I am fine without the extension. I tend to have enough distance between the eye lens and my eye to prevent any grease from my eye soiling the lens. Now that I am conscious of this I will keep my eye on it (pun intended 😂).

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

Please note that the facts are your facts and a few others but not every great fellow astronomers facts, maybe they like to rely on a great company like Baader, surely they aren't crooks or only half intelligent being around so long with quite a diverse product line.  If so who do we all trust these days, its important for us to know.    PS:  I stand fully behind my 17.5, 12.5, 9.5, 6.5 Morpheus numbers.

Alternative facts.  Where have I hear that before?  LOL.

However, like weight, apparent field is just one measurement of many on an eyepiece, and each of us weighs the importance of each characteristic of the eyepiece for our own purposes.

It might be weight, or eye relief, or apparent field, or field stop.  

But seeing measurements for hundreds, if not thousands of eyepieces over the last 60 years, it is worth noting that apparent field and eye relief are usually approximate and rarely exact.

Does that matter?  Probably not.  It just means that things are rarely exact, and many things are rounded off, and advertising isn't the same as physical measurements.

It's just all part of the astronomy world.

[badhex]

3 hours ago, LDW1 said:

If the eyepiece works and the views are great on a great nite who really cares about a number ? And as well why would a very reputable company such as Baader purger their  reputation by continuing to falsely state a FOV that has been discovered wrong by the ' real experts ' ?  I can probably tell you why, lol !    PS:  Think about it for awhile !  PPS:  Does that mean that all the fellow astronomers who really like looking through that ep, the wide views, the comfort just plain don't know what they are saying, I guess thats why I used ' half intelligent ' as a description if the we lovers of the 17.5 etc don't actually know.  Sorry !

Honestly, I think you might be misinterpreting what's being said here. I don't think anyone is denigrating Baader gear, least of all me. My favourite EP is the 17.5mm Morpheus as previously mentioned. I also haven't seen anyone on SGL ever claim to be an outright expert. Some people like to contribute numbers and objectively measured facts, some people simply don't care, and some people like to hear all sides of the story. One thing that I don't think is bringing any value to the thread is getting overly heat up about something so inconsequential. 

All of this said you are right about one thing: this was a positive thread until a few posts ago, and now the conversation seems to be getting very close to getting this - as mentioned - previously gentle thread being locked. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by badhex

[badhex]

12 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

I use the M43 extension ring on the 4.5mm and the 6.5mm only. I find that it places my eye more or less in a comfortable viewing position. Regarding the others I am fine without the extension. I tend to have enough distance between the eye lens and my eye to prevent any grease from my eye soiling the lens. Now that I am conscious of this I will keep my eye on it (pun intended 😂).

I also had to put a couple of O-rings into the mix as spacers on my 4.5mm as it wasn't quite perfect, but now it works pretty well. Premium EPs should all have the M43 thread! I'm a fully paid up member of the "Campaign for M43 Eyepiece Length Spacers" or CAMELS for short 😂

[Don Pensack]

27 minutes ago, badhex said:

I also had to put a couple of O-rings into the mix as spacers on my 4.5mm as it wasn't quite perfect, but now it works pretty well. Premium EPs should all have the M43 thread! I'm a fully paid up member of the "Campaign for M43 Eyepiece Length Spacers" or CAMELS for short 😂

You can get the 43mm spacer as a separate item as well.  Baader sells them separately.  Perhaps some dealers do, too.