Baader Morpheus range - General chat

[badhex]

10 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

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

Yes, I bought a few to play about with (I think I talked about it a bit in the other thread I posted) but ended up finding that one was too few, two too many. I ended up with my perfect setup as one M43 ring on all of my Morphs and APM EPs, with an additional two o-rings on the 4.5mm. 

[LDW1]

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

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?

With out reading all the whatever how many random samples out of how many batches, over how much time did he use to come up with the numbers, hopefully just not a single ? It is an excepted fact, as with everything, in all worlds that there will be + & - 's so why is it always brought up without telling the whole story, many would disreguard that issue in their decisions I would suspect. I sure do and just go with ' I want to try it or don't want to try it ' as you point out, kind of.  Sometimes it could even be a diservice to fellow astronomers, IMO.

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

1 hour ago, badhex said:

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. 

From my lengthy experience on a competitor site ( 10+ yrs. ) elsewhere in the world it is definitely close to running out of good conversations, with a jumble of meaningless numbers ie 14.58mm !  But then again its only IMO.  PS:  When you start putting out what everyone knows can be variable numbers, as is mentioned, what is the purpose but to confuse some into making maybe a bad decision on something they really were looking forward to getting, to trying against what they already have, thats part of the enjoyment of this great hobby / pastime. But some may not care, its just another numbers game, lol, to some, it can be just as dazzling as a comet newly discovered.

Edited August 12, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

And to be truly honest I did not realize that the world of great performing eyepieces was affected by long eyelashes due to a misplaced eye to eyepiece. I never realized that it would be hard to overcome, that additional steps would be required ?  I have never had that problem, thank god !

[Don Pensack]

50 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

With out reading all the whatever how many random samples out of how many batches, over how much time did he use to come up with the numbers ? It is an accepted fact, as with everything, that there will be + & - 's so why is it always brought up without telling the whole story, many would disregard that issue in their decisions I would suspect. I sure do and just go with ' I want to try it or don't want to try it ' as you point out, kind of.  Sometimes it could even be a disservice to fellow astronomers, IMO.

He tested individual eyepieces.  Typically, field stops vary perhaps +/-0.05mm or less, meaning the apparent fields will differ insubstantially (maybe 0.05°?) from eyepiece sample to eyepiece sample.

For sure, whether an eyepiece is 76° or 78° won't make any difference in the field.  There are a lot of other factors that most would rate more important.  The Morpheus eyepieces wouldn't have become popular if they had been dogs, optically, so a couple degrees doesn't really matter.

It's the same with zooms, too.  They never actually measure what the advertising claims, but the differences are small, and unimportant.  Only large differences may matter to someone, like one that has a 30° low power field versus another with a 42° low power field.

Say you're a company that produces a line of eyepieces and they vary from 70° to 74°.  You might just advertise them all at 72°, knowing that only a few people will ever measure them to find out that variation exists.  That doesn't invalidate a measurement that shows something different than the advertising claim.  It's incumbent, perhaps, on the reviewer, to note that it is a relatively unimportant variation.  Knowing the measurements is one thing; how they perform in your scope is another, and one doesn't always follow from the other.

 

[LDW1]

27 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

He tested individual eyepieces.  Typically, field stops vary perhaps +/-0.05mm or less, meaning the apparent fields will differ insubstantially (maybe 0.05°?) from eyepiece sample to eyepiece sample.

For sure, whether an eyepiece is 76° or 78° won't make any difference in the field.  There are a lot of other factors that most would rate more important.  The Morpheus eyepieces wouldn't have become popular if they had been dogs, optically, so a couple degrees doesn't really matter.

It's the same with zooms, too.  They never actually measure what the advertising claims, but the differences are small, and unimportant.  Only large differences may matter to someone, like one that has a 30° low power field versus another with a 42° low power field.

Say you're a company that produces a line of eyepieces and they vary from 70° to 74°.  You might just advertise them all at 72°, knowing that only a few people will ever measure them to find out that variation exists.  That doesn't invalidate a measurement that shows something different than the advertising claim.  It's incumbent, perhaps, on the reviewer, to note that it is a relatively unimportant variation.  Knowing the measurements is one thing; how they perform in your scope is another, and one doesn't always follow from the other.

 

Absoluutely correct, in general, but what impression should we be putting across or not to a fellow astronomer as to those never ending variations in eyepiece performance or any other performances in this great pastime, performance that really matters to the majority not, hopefully, only a few. When we all look through an ep, a scope that we all strive for, most of these confusing numbers only confuse not benefit. I and many others see it all the time, why fill up a great thread with ........ !  Just IMO and hopefully others.   PS:  In todays world as in yesterdays world nothing is absolute, that has never changed, we have all come to learn that so why fill up pages with a lot of superflous data. Whether 72° or 76° that can and does vary means nothing on a clear dark nite to an astronomer who just wants some enjoyment, we all know that and except that and so does Baader, Nagler, etc, etc. We aren't just ' half intelligent ', lol !  PS:  Sorry for the perceived rants but its been interesting and maybe adds to it all, lol.

[Barry-W-Fenner]

So, Have I missed anything! 🙂

 

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

On 12/08/2023 at 18:00, badhex said:

Yes, I bought a few to play about with (I think I talked about it a bit in the other thread I posted) but ended up finding that one was too few, two too many. I ended up with my perfect setup as one M43 ring on all of my Morphs and APM EPs, with an additional two o-rings on the 4.5mm. 

 

Interesting information regarding the M43 extension, I have not considered trying two of them. I sometimes have difficulty with eye placement on the 6.5mm - I might take an extension off of one of my other morphs and double up on the 6.5 to see if helps.

It only appears to be the 6.5 that I am having a few issues with.

Nice collection of EPs you have there, I had the 30mm UFF APM - I enjoyed using it but sold it as I woudl have preferred the 24mm that you have, I have kept my eyes open for one but no luck so far!

 

 

 

[badhex]

39 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

 

Interesting information regarding the M43 extension, I have not considered trying two of them. I sometimes have difficulty with eye placement on the 6.5mm - I might take an extension off of one of my other morphs and double up on the 6.5 to see if helps.

It only appears to be the 6.5 that I am having a few issues with.

Nice collection of EPs you have there, I had the 30mm UFF APM - I enjoyed using it but sold it as I woudl have preferred the 24mm that you have, I have kept my eyes open for one but no luck so far!

Thanks! I do like my small collection. I have a few more in the cases but that's all the Morpheus/APM that I own. That said, I'm finding it hard not to get a 30mm UFF as well since the reports are so good! Wallet says no at the moment, however 🙄

You can easily pick up the 24mm UFF under FLO's StellaLyra branding; it is identical and quite a lot cheaper than the APM version was when I bought it (the StellaLyra version didn't exist at the time). 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellalyra-eyepieces/stellalyra-24mm-ultra-flat-field-125-eyepiece.html

On the Morpheus eye placement, if two extensions seems too much, you can also try adding them and then rolling down the eye guard. I used rubber hair bands in place of O-rings (which reminds me I must pick up some proper ones 😂) 

[Marian M]

On thought on eye placement on Morpheus line:

 

I faced the same in the past- being used with SLVs, Lacerta ED, where I was used to touch something with my face for the optimum position, it was a disaster when I have tried first time Morpheus eyepieces. Instead of observing, my whole attention was towards the eye placement, which I found very challenging. 

 

What I have been learned by my budy, was just to support my body on something, to lean on something- either the mount if allows, or on a chair for observation. Having this second contact point, it will keep the body/ head/ eye much better in the best position. You can try first during the day, when everything is easier on placement. You can learn your body on the same using binoviewer, because the effort is less while placing both eyes at once. Third, you can learn during the night. Sometimes, even today, there are moments when the eye placement is difficult for me during the night, but I must come very easy, slow, towards the eyepiece. With the SLV for example, with the eyecup up completely, you may just "jump" on the eyepiece, and is good to go. I have tried in the past with eyecup extension but it was (for me) the wrong way.

 

Why so much effort?  While removing the eyecup, the feeling of immersion is much better than with the eyecup there. For me, through the binoviewer, there is no comparison at all. Nothing similar. Huge difference... While scanning the Milky Way, through binoviewer, is like there is nothing between you and the sky. It is not like you are scanning the sky from ISS. It is like you are in the sky, surrounded by stars. Together with the quality of the eyepiece, this should be the reason of so many people here loving the Morpheus line, and so many association between immersion and Morpheus.

 

Forgot to mention, you should have no lights around you, no lights close to you, because the eyes are at some distance vs the eyepieces and any light will interfere.

 

Apologies if this has been approached earlier in this thread- I didn't read it from the beginning

[John]

3 minutes ago, Marian M said:

 

 

....Forgot to mention, you should have no lights around you, no lights close to you, because the eyes are at some distance vs the eyepieces and any light will interfere....

 

 

Where I normally observe, there are a few lights around and having the eye lens of the eyepiece shielded from light intrusion, especially a large one like the Morpheus, XW's Delos etc, is important to maintaining good contrast I've found. For that reason I like to press my eye socket gently against a soft eyecup and hopefully to seal out as much intrusive light as possible. I do not wear glasses when observing though.

Over the years I have been on forums such as SGL and CN I have noticed that there are very many differences in preferences when selecting and using eyepieces - one persons dream eyepiece can be another persons nightmare. That may explain why there are often sharp differences of opinion on eyepieces as well, perhaps more so than other items of astronomical equipment !

[Marian M]

5 minutes ago, John said:

Over the years I have been on forums such as SGL and CN I have noticed that there are very many differences in preferences when selecting and using eyepieces - one persons dream eyepiece can be another persons nightmare. That may explain why there are often sharp differences of opinion on eyepieces as well, perhaps more so than other items of astronomical equipment !

I have learned the hard way the same. Before my above experience , I bought XWA 10mm, one the the most praised eyepiece on comfort and quality. I wasn't able at all to accommodate, even with the eyecup up (too far to "touch" me), so I sold it... After that Morpheus come, now seems redundant to buy again the XWA 10, owning Morphues 9, but who knows 😄

 

For all the people here, who want to buy expensive eyepieces or telescopes (better to say designs)- please wait, put some effort to go and test it, wait, test, wait, test. Otherwise the biggest joy of a new acquisition may turn on a big disappointment

 

Read, test, think (adjust expectations/ need), wait (clean your mind), buy... 😀 

[John]

The lively 2nd hand market in astronomy equipment is very useful. Most of my gear has been bought used and I have very often been able to buy, try then sell on if necessary, at little or no cost 🙂

I'm not sure if that is the case in all countries though 🤔

Edited August 14, 2023 by John

[Marian M]

3 minutes ago, John said:

I'm not sure if that is the case in all countries though 🤔

Smaller the country, lesser options. But there are many more branded new options 😀

[bosun21]

This thread just confirms how eyepieces/eye placement etc is a very personalised affair. Luckily I find the eye placement for my six Morpheus eyepieces to be extremely natural for me. I only use the M43 extension on my 6.5mm & 4.5mm to make them a little more comfortable. There’s been some well regarded eyepieces that I just couldn’t get on with. The slightest movement of my head incurred blackouts. One mans food can be another mans poison springs to mind.

[Don Pensack]

4 hours ago, Marian M said:

On thought on eye placement on Morpheus line:

 

I faced the same in the past- being used with SLVs, Lacerta ED, where I was used to touch something with my face for the optimum position, it was a disaster when I have tried first time Morpheus eyepieces. Instead of observing, my whole attention was towards the eye placement, which I found very challenging. 

 

What I have been learned by my budy, was just to support my body on something, to lean on something- either the mount if allows, or on a chair for observation. Having this second contact point, it will keep the body/ head/ eye much better in the best position. You can try first during the day, when everything is easier on placement. You can learn your body on the same using binoviewer, because the effort is less while placing both eyes at once. Third, you can learn during the night. Sometimes, even today, there are moments when the eye placement is difficult for me during the night, but I must come very easy, slow, towards the eyepiece. With the SLV for example, with the eyecup up completely, you may just "jump" on the eyepiece, and is good to go. I have tried in the past with eyecup extension but it was (for me) the wrong way.

 

Why so much effort?  While removing the eyecup, the feeling of immersion is much better than with the eyecup there. For me, through the binoviewer, there is no comparison at all. Nothing similar. Huge difference... While scanning the Milky Way, through binoviewer, is like there is nothing between you and the sky. It is not like you are scanning the sky from ISS. It is like you are in the sky, surrounded by stars. Together with the quality of the eyepiece, this should be the reason of so many people here loving the Morpheus line, and so many association between immersion and Morpheus.

 

Forgot to mention, you should have no lights around you, no lights close to you, because the eyes are at some distance vs the eyepieces and any light will interfere.

 

Apologies if this has been approached earlier in this thread- I didn't read it from the beginning

Are you standing to observe?

Long eye relief eyepieces, no glasses used, and standing are 3 things that don't go together if ease of use is contemplated.

Either raising the eyecup or sitting, or both will make the use of the eyepiece easier.

[LDW1]

8 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

So, Have I missed anything! 🙂

 

 

No, not a thing !  I always remember the words from an old song ' blinded by the light ......... ',  lol !

Edited August 14, 2023 by LDW1

[Marian M]

Hi Don!

Both- if time and AltAz position of the scope allows, I am sitting on the chair, if not/ available time is short, standing

Thanks a lot for your message, I forgot to add that a chair will make the difference. On the shopping list, there is a chair with many locking heights, instead of the current one with 2 only

 

[Barry-W-Fenner]

A question for the technical chaps on here, I have just been looking at the full range. Considering pulling the trigger on the 12.5mm!

One thing that struck me was how they all step down in size, Roughly in equal increments, With exception of the 12.5mm - what would make the 12.5 differ from the rest of the line up?

Also looking at the pictures, I assume the bottom half of the whole range below the rubber grip is exactly the same components,  And the focal length differences are made up in the longer/shorter top barrels?

Just an observation that interested me 🙂

 

[badhex]

49 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

A question for the technical chaps on here, I have just been looking at the full range. Considering pulling the trigger on the 12.5mm!

One thing that struck me was how they all step down in size, Roughly in equal increments, With exception of the 12.5mm - what would make the 12.5 differ from the rest of the line up?

Also looking at the pictures, I assume the bottom half of the whole range below the rubber grip is exactly the same components,  And the focal length differences are made up in the longer/shorter top barrels?

Just an observation that interested me 🙂

 

I think I've seen a lens arrangement diagram so where with all of them on. That might show the difference. I'll have a poke about for it. 

[LDW1]

4 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

A question for the technical chaps on here, I have just been looking at the full range. Considering pulling the trigger on the 12.5mm!

One thing that struck me was how they all step down in size, Roughly in equal increments, With exception of the 12.5mm - what would make the 12.5 differ from the rest of the line up?

Also looking at the pictures, I assume the bottom half of the whole range below the rubber grip is exactly the same components,  And the focal length differences are made up in the longer/shorter top barrels?

Just an observation that interested me 🙂

 

Maybe thats a question for Baader themselves, everything else would be second guesses?  Its a good starting point.

[Zermelo]

4 hours ago, badhex said:

I think I've seen a lens arrangement diagram so where with all of them on. That might show the difference. I'll have a poke about for it. 

Sometimes the ads use an "X-ray" image:

 

It's been said before that the 17.5mm was a little different (and released later).

Though they are all described as 8 elements in 5 groups.

[LDW1]

4 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

Sometimes the ads use an "X-ray" image:

 

It's been said before that the 17.5mm was a little different (and released later).

Though they are all described as 8 elements in 5 groups.

The only way you can tell is with a set of comparative diagrams with all the dimensions shown for each size, its the only way to get an exact.  There may have been several people designing these over the time it took, from my experience in engineering (42yrs.) every designer has a little different thought when designing, the differences are small in these and they all work. Or it may be in the manufacture ?  You may never get a real answer for these small changes !

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

A question for the technical chaps on here, I have just been looking at the full range. Considering pulling the trigger on the 12.5mm!

One thing that struck me was how they all step down in size, Roughly in equal increments, With exception of the 12.5mm - what would make the 12.5 differ from the rest of the line up?

Also looking at the pictures, I assume the bottom half of the whole range below the rubber grip is exactly the same components,  And the focal length differences are made up in the longer/shorter top barrels?

Just an observation that interested me 🙂

 

They get longer as the focal length gets shorter because the negative field lens is move farther from the upper lens assembly to increase magnification (i.e. shorten the focal length).

The 12.5mm possibly uses a slightly higher power field lens than the 17.5 and 14mm, so can be a trace shorter than the 14mm.

[LDW1]

6 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

A question for the technical chaps on here, I have just been looking at the full range. Considering pulling the trigger on the 12.5mm!

One thing that struck me was how they all step down in size, Roughly in equal increments, With exception of the 12.5mm - what would make the 12.5 differ from the rest of the line up?

Also looking at the pictures, I assume the bottom half of the whole range below the rubber grip is exactly the same components,  And the focal length differences are made up in the longer/shorter top barrels?

Just an observation that interested me 🙂

 

The 12.5 is a great ep as are the rest except for the 14 according to some of the reviews I have read. Its the only one I didn't buy, I mentioned in another post what I did buy after some thought and research.

Edited August 15, 2023 by LDW1