Baader Morpheus range - General chat

[Louis D]

Based on the Pentax XW and XL lines, which are similar to the Morpheus in that the eye relief and AFOV remain relatively constant across focal lengths, it is the upper image forming section that remains relatively constant while the lower section Smyth lenses change to achieve different powers.  The exceptions start occurring as the focal length gets longer.  I'm pretty sure the 17.5mm Morpheus has a different upper section based it having a reportedly narrower field of view and having been designed years after the first group.

Pentax XWs:

Pentax XLs:

Notice the subtle difference in the lowest lens of the upper section of both the XW 20 and XL 21?  I have a feeling the Morpheus 17.5mm is similar in having a different upper group prescription.

Also notice that the XWs added a middle element to the 7, 10, and 14 that didn't exist at all in their XL counterparts.  I have a feeling it was to better control alignment of the various edge rays across the field when going from 65 to 70 degrees.

Lastly, notice how many Smyth group variations there are across the two lines.  Apparently, that is where the designer was allowed the most degrees of freedom.  By keeping the upper section mostly constant, they could reduce manufacturing costs across multiple focal lengths.  Only the small Smyth group lenses are unique.  In the XL line, it appears that only the spacing was changed between the 10.5 and 14 and the 5.2 and 7.  For the XW line, it appears the designers were allowed to create unique Smyth prescriptions for each focal length, not just spacing.

Disclaimer: Since Baader hasn't released detailed internal lens diagrams for the entire Morpheus line, we can only conjecture about them based on outward similarities to other eyepiece lines that are better documented.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Louis D

[Barry-W-Fenner]

21 hours ago, LDW1 said:

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.

I have the 14mm and enjoy the low power x107 magnification it provides in my 12" dob - the magnification difference for the 12.5mm would be x13 - I am not to interested in the slight magnification gain. I am quite intersted to know how it performs visually compared to the 14mm - Not to knock the 14mm as I enjoy using it, But many state that the 14mm is the weakest in the range.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Barry-W-Fenner

[Fraunhoffer]

1 hour ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I have the 14mm and enjoy the low power x107 magnification it provies in my 12" dob - the magnification difference for the 12.5mm would be x13 - I am not to interested in the slight magnification gain. I am quite intersted to know how it performs visually compared to the 14mm - Not to knock the 14mm a I enjoy using it, But many state that the 14mm is the weakest in the range.

 

Ive read this about the 14mm several times - what does weakest mean plse, and is it significant.
How would it compare to eg. the UFF (various brands) 15mm?
Would going from 15mm UFF to 14.5 Morph be a worthwhile/noticeable upgrade for the expense?
Thinking of 12 inch f5 dob (+ CC) or  c8 (+ f/6.5 focal reducer).

Thanks.

[Zermelo]

27 minutes ago, Fraunhoffer said:

Ive read this about the 14mm several times - what does weakest mean plse, and is it significant.
How would it compare to eg. the UFF (various brands) 15mm?
Would going from 15mm UFF to 14.5 Morph be a worthwhile/noticeable upgrade for the expense?
Thinking of 12 inch f5 dob (+ CC) or  c8 (+ f/6.5 focal reducer).

Thanks.

I like my 14mm as much as the other Morpheus I use. 

There's probably already a link somewhere above to this thread on CN, which does discuss the 14mm in particular.

Ernest Maratovich has done aberration bench tests on all of them. I can't find the link now, but I copied the figures out a while back:

which show the 14mm as slightly inferior to the others off-axis at F/4, but as good as the 12.5mm at F/10.

 

[Fraunhoffer]

Thank you. Very helpful link.

 

[Louis D]

Compared to my Pentax XL 14mm, the Morpheus 14mm has slight edge astigmatism in the outer 10% at f/6 and faster.  However, the Morpheus has a much flatter field, but it still has a slight curvature.  However, when refocused for the edge, the Pentax is astigmatism free to the edge.  However, since I don't ever refocus while letting stars drift across the field with my undriven mounts, the Pentax loses on net.  Thus, the Pentax was relegated to my B-team case while the Morpheus was promoted to my A-team case.

That said, I prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm over either.  It is wider in both AFOV and TFOV than either, absolutely flat of field, and astigmatism free at the edge.  The only annoying thing about it is that it compresses objects into the field stop instead of stretching them like most eyepieces.  That, and it is quite heavy.  I like it so much, I keep it with my grab and go kit because I tend to use it exclusively some nights when scanning the skies aimlessly to unwind.

[LDW1]

5 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I have the 14mm and enjoy the low power x107 magnification it provides in my 12" dob - the magnification difference for the 12.5mm would be x13 - I am not to interested in the slight magnification gain. I am quite intersted to know how it performs visually compared to the 14mm - Not to knock the 14mm as I enjoy using it, But many state that the 14mm is the weakest in the range.

 

I bought those sizes because of the various size refractors that I have and the fact that I like to experiment, to compare on a given nite.  Its not always the money thing. I have several brands / models / sizes in that same range(s) that I do it with, part of my enjoyment for years and it won't change, $'s aside.

[LDW1]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Compared to my Pentax XL 14mm, the Morpheus 14mm has slight edge astigmatism in the outer 10% at f/6 and faster.  However, the Morpheus has a much flatter field, but it still has a slight curvature.  However, when refocused for the edge, the Pentax is astigmatism free to the edge.  However, since I don't ever refocus while letting stars drift across the field with my undriven mounts, the Pentax loses on net.  Thus, the Pentax was relegated to my B-team case while the Morpheus was promoted to my A-team case.

That said, I prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm over either.  It is wider in both AFOV and TFOV than either, absolutely flat of field, and astigmatism free at the edge.  The only annoying thing about it is that it compresses objects into the field stop instead of stretching them like most eyepieces.  That, and it is quite heavy.  I like it so much, I keep it with my grab and go kit because I tend to use it exclusively some nights when scanning the skies aimlessly to unwind.

You mentioned a situation with your eyes yet you can still note that and other performances ?  You are amazing, better than the average astronomer.

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Compared to my Pentax XL 14mm, the Morpheus 14mm has slight edge astigmatism in the outer 10% at f/6 and faster.  However, the Morpheus has a much flatter field, but it still has a slight curvature.  However, when refocused for the edge, the Pentax is astigmatism free to the edge.  However, since I don't ever refocus while letting stars drift across the field with my undriven mounts, the Pentax loses on net.  Thus, the Pentax was relegated to my B-team case while the Morpheus was promoted to my A-team case.

That said, I prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm over either.  It is wider in both AFOV and TFOV than either, absolutely flat of field, and astigmatism free at the edge.  The only annoying thing about it is that it compresses objects into the field stop instead of stretching them like most eyepieces.  That, and it is quite heavy.  I like it so much, I keep it with my grab and go kit because I tend to use it exclusively some nights when scanning the skies aimlessly to unwind.

However, I passed my APM 12.5mm Hi-FW around at a star party, and everyone saw the same thing I saw--Edge of Field Brightening (EOFB) in the last 20° of the field all the way around.

Alas, because it's a better eyepiece except for the EOFB, but I couldn't tolerate the EOFB and sold the eyepiece.

 

My dob is a 12.5" used with Paracorr II (effective f/ratio 5.75, FL 1826mm), and I got a chance to compare the 14mm and 12.5mm Morpheus extensively over a night (not for the first time).

In that scope, both the 14mm and 12.5mm Morpheus display zero field curvature--when the center is in focus, so is the edge.  I could focus at the edge and see focused star images in the center.

Bear in mind, the longer focal length of the dob and the field flattening characteristic of the Paracorr modifies what is seen in the eyepiece, so a short focal length refractor could be different in that regard.

I have a short focal length refractor, but my observing in that scope starts at 9mm and becomes smaller in focal length, with a lot of use of the 4.5mm Morpheus.

 

The 14mm has a bit of lateral astigmatism in the last 5° of field, and stars are stretched slightly at the field stop.  It is really far from center, however, and usually unnoticeable, as I don't typically watch objects drift out of the field as I did the other night.

I only noticed it in comparison to the 12.5mm, which is fast becoming my favorite eyepiece.

 

The 12.5mm maintained tiny pin-point stars to the very edge and had a slightly improved sharpness to the 14mm everywhere in the field.

Despite Ernest's measurements, the only way I could fault the 12.5mm was very slight chromatic issues in the star images at or near the edge.

But I could eliminate that by merely looking through the eyepiece at a slightly different angle.

 

I compared the image quality on many objects with a TeleVue 11mm Apollo, and if I saw any difference at all (other than magnification), it was that the 12.5mm Morpheus was slightly sharper.

Since seeing was mediocre, the increased magnification was likely to blame, as the 9mm Morpheus also displayed star images that were a bit softer.

 

 

 

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, Fraunhoffer said:

Ive read this about the 14mm several times - what does weakest mean plse, and is it significant.
How would it compare to eg. the UFF (various brands) 15mm?
Would going from 15mm UFF to 14 Morph be a worthwhile/noticeable upgrade for the expense?
Thinking of 12 inch f5 dob (+ CC) or  c8 (+ f/6.3 focal reducer).

Thanks.

Weaker, in an eyepiece, could refer to:

--more lateral chromatic aberration

--a softer focus at the edge, or everywhere in the field

--more lateral astigmatism in the field

--more field curvature (where, when the center is in focus, the edge is not)

The 15mm UFF has more lateral astigmatism than the 14mm Morpheus in my scope (12.5", f/5.75, coma-corrected).

 

The big differences you would see with the 14mm Morpheus compared to the 15mm UFF are:

--a 15° wider apparent field (a measured 63° vs. 78°)

--Much more eye relief on the Morpheus.

--an improvement in light transmission--fainter features in objects visible in the Morpheus.

--in a coma corrected scope with that long a focal length, field curvature won't be an issue

--the Morpheus is a much larger eyepiece, but isn't very heavy and won't be a balance problem in that scope.

--the Morpheus will require a different setting of the coma corrector--setting A in the Paracorr when used as a 1.25" eyepiece.  If used as a 2", it will require so much out-focus that you needn't worry about the 1.25" barrel contacting the CC lens.

Its Paracorr position, when used as a 2" eyepiece, is setting H with the eyepiece pulled out of the Paracorr an additional 3.2mm (which is why using it as a 1.25" eyepiece is easier).

If you use a GSO coma corrector, you might require a different spacer between the lens and the eyepiece barrel, or a very low height adapter, like the Baader Push-Fix adapter unless you have other eyepieces that focus as far in.

 

Overall, the Morpheus 14mm is on a different level than the 15mm UFF, so is the difference noticeable?  I think the answer is yes.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Don Pensack

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, LDW1 said:

You mentioned a situation with your eyes yet you can still note that and other performances ?  You are amazing, better than the average astronomer.

Yes, because I wear corrective eyewear at the eyepiece, and have years of experience critically comparing eyepieces for various aberrations and other issues.  Your point is what?  Ego stroking or snidely trying to take me down a notch?  If you believe I am unqualified to discuss eyepiece performance, just come right out and say it and present your evidence to support that view.  I'm always willing to have a cordial debate on topics near and dear to my interests.

I'm well aware of my eyes' limitations and always take them into account.  I have my eyes examined yearly and get new glasses yearly.  In fact, I find it annoying when folks who don't even know if they have eye astigmatism because they haven't had their eyes examined for years make any sort of claims about eyepieces lacking sharpness.  That, or they live with small amounts of astigmatism because they don't want to be bothered with corrective eyewear.  They often forget to take that small amount of astigmatism into account when critically examining eyepiece aberrations.

That being said, it's not hard to distinguish eyepiece astigmatism from any residual eye astigmatism with correction if you are a careful examiner for aberrations.  Simply put a moderately bright star on axis and rack the eyepiece back and forth through best focus.  Any change in the shape of the star out of focus from being perfectly round is pretty much dependent on your own eye's astigmatism because I've yet to find an eyepiece that exhibits astigmatism on axis.  In my case, the change with corrective eyewear is negligible.  I just see a round Airy disk.  Now, move that same star in steps toward the edge and repeat the focus racking to observe how much the star changes shape on either side of best focus at various point across the field of view.  Astigmatism will cause the star to stretch radially on one side of best focus and tangentially on the other side.  At best focus, it may resemble a small cross rather than a point of light.  Most eyepieces exhibit some amount of astigmatism when used in f/6 or faster scopes in the last 5% of the FOV in my experience.  Only a very small number of the very best corrected eyepieces show practically no astigmatism at the edge.  My 10mm Delos and 30mm APM UFF immediately come to mind as having none at the field stop.

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

However, I passed my APM 12.5mm Hi-FW around at a star party, and everyone saw the same thing I saw--Edge of Field Brightening (EOFB) in the last 20° of the field all the way around.

Alas, because it's a better eyepiece except for the EOFB, but I couldn't tolerate the EOFB and sold the eyepiece.

I haven't noticed it despite using it quite a bit lately.  The worst premium eyepiece I've owned for EOFB is my 12mm NT4.  One night it was so bad that the graying extended almost to a point on axis.  I swapped in my 12mm ES-92 for comparison, and suddenly the sky background was evenly dark again.  I swapped back and forth a few times to make sure I wasn't imagining it.

I'll look again more critically for EOFB in the Hi-FW sometime.

[LDW1]

58 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Yes, because I wear corrective eyewear at the eyepiece, and have years of experience critically comparing eyepieces for various aberrations and other issues.  Your point is what?  Ego stroking or snidely trying to take me down a notch?  If you believe I am unqualified to discuss eyepiece performance, just come right out and say it and present your evidence to support that view.  I'm always willing to have a cordial debate on topics near and dear to my interests.

I'm well aware of my eyes' limitations and always take them into account.  I have my eyes examined yearly and get new glasses yearly.  In fact, I find it annoying when folks who don't even know if they have eye astigmatism because they haven't had their eyes examined for years make any sort of claims about eyepieces lacking sharpness.  That, or they live with small amounts of astigmatism because they don't want to be bothered with corrective eyewear.  They often forget to take that small amount of astigmatism into account when critically examining eyepiece aberrations.

That being said, it's not hard to distinguish eyepiece astigmatism from any residual eye astigmatism with correction if you are a careful examiner for aberrations.  Simply put a moderately bright star on axis and rack the eyepiece back and forth through best focus.  Any change in the shape of the star out of focus from being perfectly round is pretty much dependent on your own eye's astigmatism because I've yet to find an eyepiece that exhibits astigmatism on axis.  In my case, the change with corrective eyewear is negligible.  I just see a round Airy disk.  Now, move that same star in steps toward the edge and repeat the focus racking to observe how much the star changes shape on either side of best focus at various point across the field of view.  Astigmatism will cause the star to stretch radially on one side of best focus and tangentially on the other side.  At best focus, it may resemble a small cross rather than a point of light.  Most eyepieces exhibit some amount of astigmatism when used in f/6 or faster scopes in the last 5% of the FOV in my experience.  Only a very small number of the very best corrected eyepieces show practically no astigmatism at the edge.  My 10mm Delos and 30mm APM UFF immediately come to mind as having none at the field stop.

I have several friends that need to wear corrective lens, or for corrective hearing, I meant it as I said it !  PS:  Your sight is a lot better than my 75 yr. old eyes with a massive amount of floaters in my dominent to the point where I had to train my left to do my viewing.  Note:  I never say something to make fun in a derogatory way, ever.

Edited August 16, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

22 hours ago, Louis D said:

Yes, because I wear corrective eyewear at the eyepiece, and have years of experience critically comparing eyepieces for various aberrations and other issues.  Your point is what?  Ego stroking or snidely trying to take me down a notch?  If you believe I am unqualified to discuss eyepiece performance, just come right out and say it and present your evidence to support that view.  I'm always willing to have a cordial debate on topics near and dear to my interests.

I'm well aware of my eyes' limitations and always take them into account.  I have my eyes examined yearly and get new glasses yearly.  In fact, I find it annoying when folks who don't even know if they have eye astigmatism because they haven't had their eyes examined for years make any sort of claims about eyepieces lacking sharpness.  That, or they live with small amounts of astigmatism because they don't want to be bothered with corrective eyewear.  They often forget to take that small amount of astigmatism into account when critically examining eyepiece aberrations.

That being said, it's not hard to distinguish eyepiece astigmatism from any residual eye astigmatism with correction if you are a careful examiner for aberrations.  Simply put a moderately bright star on axis and rack the eyepiece back and forth through best focus.  Any change in the shape of the star out of focus from being perfectly round is pretty much dependent on your own eye's astigmatism because I've yet to find an eyepiece that exhibits astigmatism on axis.  In my case, the change with corrective eyewear is negligible.  I just see a round Airy disk.  Now, move that same star in steps toward the edge and repeat the focus racking to observe how much the star changes shape on either side of best focus at various point across the field of view.  Astigmatism will cause the star to stretch radially on one side of best focus and tangentially on the other side.  At best focus, it may resemble a small cross rather than a point of light.  Most eyepieces exhibit some amount of astigmatism when used in f/6 or faster scopes in the last 5% of the FOV in my experience.  Only a very small number of the very best corrected eyepieces show practically no astigmatism at the edge.  My 10mm Delos and 30mm APM UFF immediately come to mind as having none at the field stop.

As a matter of fact I don't appreciate having my integrity questioned, do you ?  I may not like someone but I don't belittle them, ever !   PS:  I am more than just a shill, lol !

Edited August 17, 2023 by LDW1

[badhex]

Can we get back to the topic please?

[LDW1]

59 minutes ago, badhex said:

Can we get back to the topic please?

Read some of the posts above.  Please !   PS:  Maybe we should put numbers on each individual post like at CN ?

Edited August 17, 2023 by LDW1

[Guest]

What badhex said.  Lets knock this crap off and get back to the subject at hand.  

[Barry-W-Fenner]

On 16/08/2023 at 15:18, Don Pensack said:

However, I passed my APM 12.5mm Hi-FW around at a star party, and everyone saw the same thing I saw--Edge of Field Brightening (EOFB) in the last 20° of the field all the way around.

Alas, because it's a better eyepiece except for the EOFB, but I couldn't tolerate the EOFB and sold the eyepiece.

 

My dob is a 12.5" used with Paracorr II (effective f/ratio 5.75, FL 1826mm), and I got a chance to compare the 14mm and 12.5mm Morpheus extensively over a night (not for the first time).

In that scope, both the 14mm and 12.5mm Morpheus display zero field curvature--when the center is in focus, so is the edge.  I could focus at the edge and see focused star images in the center.

Bear in mind, the longer focal length of the dob and the field flattening characteristic of the Paracorr modifies what is seen in the eyepiece, so a short focal length refractor could be different in that regard.

I have a short focal length refractor, but my observing in that scope starts at 9mm and becomes smaller in focal length, with a lot of use of the 4.5mm Morpheus.

 

The 14mm has a bit of lateral astigmatism in the last 5° of field, and stars are stretched slightly at the field stop.  It is really far from center, however, and usually unnoticeable, as I don't typically watch objects drift out of the field as I did the other night.

I only noticed it in comparison to the 12.5mm, which is fast becoming my favorite eyepiece.

 

The 12.5mm maintained tiny pin-point stars to the very edge and had a slightly improved sharpness to the 14mm everywhere in the field.

Despite Ernest's measurements, the only way I could fault the 12.5mm was very slight chromatic issues in the star images at or near the edge.

But I could eliminate that by merely looking through the eyepiece at a slightly different angle.

 

I compared the image quality on many objects with a TeleVue 11mm Apollo, and if I saw any difference at all (other than magnification), it was that the 12.5mm Morpheus was slightly sharper.

Since seeing was mediocre, the increased magnification was likely to blame, as the 9mm Morpheus also displayed star images that were a bit softer.

 

 

 

The 12.5mm fast becoming your favorite ep, That is high praise considering the amount of eps you have tested!

 

 

[badhex]

I have an upcoming quandary: For an upcoming holiday I'm looking at trying to reduce weight in my travel kit, which is a ZS73 and space for up to 4 EPs.

The Morpheus 17.5mm (25x, 2.9° TFOV) usually goes with me everywhere and is a great fit for this scope, but I'm also planning to take my APM Superzoom 15.4mm-7.7mm which is 28x / 2.3° TFOV at the 15.4mm end. 

I'll also likely take:

• Morpheus 4.5mm (96x, 0.8° TFOV) for higher power / doubles / PNs
• APM 24mm UFF (18x, 3.7° TFOV)
• Lacerta ED 40mm (11x, 5.9° TFOV) for search and survey

As you can see the Superzoom fills the spot between the 24mm UFF and Morpheus 4.5mm quite nicely but makes my 17.5mm a bit redundant in this setting! Do I sacrifice my fave EP for the Superzoom, or drop a different EP from the set and lose another useful FL? 

I do have both a 1.25" and 2" Powermate which would mean I could probably drop the 4.5mm, but I could really only fit the 1.25" PM (which I mainly use with BCOs for planetary) in the kit, and I find the large body size of these EPs makes for an odd setup with a 1.25" PM. 

What would you do? 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by badhex

[JOC]

I am not a very regular observer and def. not knowledgeable about the intricacies of EP's.  All I know is I wear glasses, I have significant short sightedness, very significant astigmatism, and also take a touch of prism in my prescription lenses.  I own all the Morpheus EP's and use them in my 200P.  I have no problems looking down any of them with my glasses on.  FWIW I have also never had problems observing without my glasses on as the focus of the EP seems to do outdo the need for most of the correction I get from my glasses.  However, I do tend to keep my specs on at the EP as it saves the faff of removing them.  What I have noticed is that are not too heavy.  The 200P drive mechanism (I have the star finder drive thingy in mine) doesn't seem to like too much weight and they seem to work well.  The cheapest way of buying them is to bide your time with the SGL classifieds.  I bought every single one of mine second-hand in mint condition!  FWIW they look lovely in a box too!

Edited August 18, 2023 by JOC

[JeremyS]

1 hour ago, badhex said:

I have an upcoming quandary: For an upcoming holiday I'm looking at trying to reduce weight in my travel kit, which is a ZS73 and space for up to 4 EPs.

The Morpheus 17.5mm (25x, 2.9° TFOV) usually goes with me everywhere and is a great fit for this scope, but I'm also planning to take my APM Superzoom 15.4mm-7.7mm which is 28x / 2.3° TFOV at the 15.4mm end. 

I'll also likely take:

• Morpheus 4.5mm (96x, 0.8° TFOV) for higher power / doubles / PNs
• APM 24mm UFF (18x, 3.7° TFOV)
• Lacerta ED 40mm (11x, 5.9° TFOV) for search and survey

As you can see the Superzoom fills the spot between the 24mm UFF and Morpheus 4.5mm quite nicely but makes my 17.5mm a bit redundant in this setting! Do I sacrifice my fave EP for the Superzoom, or drop a different EP from the set and lose another useful FL? 

I do have both a 1.25" and 2" Powermate which would mean I could probably drop the 4.5mm, but I could really only fit the 1.25" PM (which I mainly use with BCOs for planetary) in the kit, and I find the large body size of these EPs makes for an odd setup with a 1.25" PM. 

What would you do? 

 

I have similar considerations when I take my Tak FC 76DCU.

I go with Pan 24, N13, TV NZ 3-6 (if I plan on observing planets). And maybe one or 2 more.

In your case, APM 24, SZ (assuming it reaches focus - if going 1.25 inch only?), high power. Latter could be the M 4.5. I don’t see much point in the M 17.5. Sorry! 😊

[badhex]

16 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I have similar considerations when I take my Tak FC 76DCU.

I go with Pan 24, N13, TV NZ 3-6 (if I plan on observing planets). And maybe one or 2 more.

In your case, APM 24, SZ (assuming it reaches focus - if going 1.25 inch only?), high power. Latter could be the M 4.5. I don’t see much point in the M 17.5. Sorry! 😊

Boooo. Indeed Jeremy, not the answer I like, but the answer I know is probably correct 😭😂

The ZS73 is 2" capable and prefer it with Baader clicklock so I should be able to reach focus with the SZ, although you've reminded me that I should check as it's been a while since I used this scope and can't remember!

Now contemplating if I remove both Morphs, and go with the 40mm ED, 24mm UFF, SZ and 2" Powermate. 

At which point the thought occurs I should also remove myself from this thread as the kit no longer includes any Morpheus and is therefore off topic 😂

 

 

[JeremyS]

15 minutes ago, badhex said:

Boooo. Indeed Jeremy, not the answer I like, but the answer I know is probably correct 😭😂

The ZS73 is 2" capable and prefer it with Baader clicklock so I should be able to reach focus with the SZ, although you've reminded me that I should check as it's been a while since I used this scope and can't remember!

Now contemplating if I remove both Morphs, and go with the 40mm ED, 24mm UFF, SZ and 2" Powermate. 

At which point the thought occurs I should also remove myself from this thread as the kit no longer includes any Morpheus and is therefore off topic 😂

 

 

I should have said if you like the Morph 17.5 so much, then you should take it, Joe. I just depends on how tight you are on space.

BTW on space, if air travel I stick to 1.25-inch kit for space and weight reasons.

What about including a white light solar filter.

I too wondered about the minimum Morph content would mean we are off track on the thread. But at least @JOC is helping by posting that pic of her Morphs.

[bosun21]

21 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I too wondered about the minimum Morph content would mean we are off track on the thread. But at least @JOC is helping by posting that pic of her Morphs.

Back on track now then?

 

[badhex]

3 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I should have said if you like the Morph 17.5 so much, then you should take it, Joe. I just depends on how tight you are on space.

BTW on space, if air travel I stick to 1.25-inch kit for space and weight reasons.

What about including a white light solar filter.

I too wondered about the minimum Morph content would mean we are off track on the thread. But at least @JOC is helping by posting that pic of her Morphs.

Of course, thanks Jeremy! I'm also a creature of habit, and it does me good once in a while to do something different  On the space, I'm using an airport essentials backpack and I have enough room to take a 2" Clicklock, and a 2" Herschel wedge, along with the 4 EPs mentioned so ti works out pretty well.

And to keep up the Morph content, here's a picture of my ZS73 and 17.5mm Morpheus in solar setup on a rather cloudy public outreach event last year: