Jump to content

2052839955_Mobilephonebanner.jpg.a502a319d7033354d442937f2edd0c2c.jpg

Baader Morpheus range - General chat


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, jetstream said:

.... Keeping an open, non brand specific mind can help IMHO.

 

Yep - very  good advice !

Cherry pick the "best of" :icon_biggrin:

I can see the temptation to go "all Morpheus" though given their pricing compared to their peers.

 

 

Edited by John
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sargares said:

So, thinking about future additions to the collection. 
 

I may add the Morpheus 6.5 and 12.5 as that’ll give me magnifications around 200 and 100x which are gaps I have right now. The 6.5 would be the most powerful eyepiece in the stash. I think 203x is enough to get reasonably regularly use. (1200 focal length + 1.1x Barlow from coma corrector) 
 

How do those two fit into the set? I know the 9 and the 17.5 are a lot of peoples favourites. I’d be more inclined to go over budget at the 12.5 size IF that one is one of the weaker ones in the set as it’s a magnification that’s likely to get a lot more use. 

I have the 9 and 17.5 and I like them both very much. I've owned the 14 and used the 12.5, and I wouldn't describe any of the above as a "weaker one", other than possibly the fact that the 14 shows a little field curvature ( but it's better than the Pentax XW 14 in that respect, which is why I swapped my XW for the Morpheus). 

At the 12mm point I have a Nagler T2 12mm which is a great ep, and there's not enough difference in the Nagler 12 and the Morph 12.5 to justify having both. But of the 12.5 and 14 Morpheii I would go for the 12.5 if I already had the 9 and 17.5 as you and I do..I'd also get the Baader 2.25x barlow (either of them, they are both optically great, although the zoom 2.25 has much better build), and you would then have 3 great Morphs each offering two worthwhile differences in magnification.

To illustrate this, my scope has a focal length of 1040 mm..so...using the above 3 eps (9, 12.5, 17.5 plus the zoom 2.25x barlow) I could get the following powers:

55x, 83x, 115x, 133x, 187x, 260x

To me, that's a great spread of available powers that could cover most needs on most nights👍.

Dave

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I’m thinking the 12.5 morph + Barlow seems the most sensible option. Can Barlow the 9 then also for the likes of Saturn for higher magnification again. 
 

As @John says. When trying to be sensible and not let the gear acquisition syndrome get the better of you. It’s hard to argue with the Morpheus range. Competitive performance. Almost nagler FoV. Cheaper than the alternatives, in some cases by quite a lot. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sargares said:

Yes I’m thinking the 12.5 morph + Barlow seems the most sensible option. Can Barlow the 9 then also for the likes of Saturn for higher magnification again. 
 

As @John says. When trying to be sensible and not let the gear acquisition syndrome get the better of you. It’s hard to argue with the Morpheus range. Competitive performance. Almost nagler FoV. Cheaper than the alternatives, in some cases by quite a lot. 

When thinking about using a barlow, be aware that it will push the already generous eye relief out a bit more. This may or may not cause an issue with eye placement - for me, having to "hover" my eye above the eye cup to find the correct placement is not enjoyable.

Focal Extenders, TeleXtenders and Powermates either lessen or remove this issue.

On your last point, in practice I'm not a "sensible" eyepiece person I'm afraid so not a good example to follow :rolleyes2:

 

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jetstream said:

Thats a very nice place, I wanted to go on an astro vacation with my 15" to Colorado, New Mexico and visit Terry O in California- the invitations were there but the wife squashed the idea :grin:

How Jerry would you get your 15” there? Quite a drive from snowy mountains in Canada?

Edited by Deadlake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, John said:

When thinking about using a barlow, be aware that it will push the already generous eye relief out a bit more. This may or may not cause an issue with eye placement - for me, having to "hover" my eye above the eye cup to find the correct placement is not enjoyable.

Focal Extenders, TeleXtenders and Powermates either lessen or remove this issue.

On your last point, in practice I'm not a "sensible" eyepiece person I'm afraid so not a good example to follow :rolleyes2:

 

Aye. I really don’t like barlows for the above reason, the faff, and the fact they usually throw the focus out miles. In this case it’ll only be 200 and 300 approx magnifications. 
 

the levitating above the eyepiece isn’t the end of the world for me though. Just a minor nuisance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Roadtrip!😀

It would be a fun adventure- the USA is a great place to travel through and visit.

Now we just have to wait for the US guvmint to reopen the US to Canadians.  The Canadian government has already done this for vaccinated Americans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

That location in Sacramento looks beautiful. Not a mobile/cell phone antenna in sight! Out in the middle of nowhere, Just a stunning clear sky and fresh air in your lungs!

I do admire the diversity and beauty of the US. No wonder only a small percentage of the US population have travelled abroad when you have such amazing locations to visit.

I compiled a list of over 500 of the places I've visited on trips around the US to give y'all some idea of how much there is to see within our contiguous borders.  I haven't even traveled the Pacific Northwest yet!

 

 

US_Destinations.pdf

Edited by Louis D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Now we just have to wait for the US guvmint to reopen the US to Canadians.  The Canadian government has already done this for vaccinated Americans.

Yes, our US cabin owner neighbors are here now and seem pretty happy to be back. It will sure be nice to be able to go to the US again. We're all double Pfizered up here.

Edited by jetstream
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

How Jerry would you get your 15” there? Quite a drive from snowy mountains in Canada?

Roadtrip indeed.  My wife and I just got back last month from a 1400 mile each way road trip to Michigan to visit her family.  That way, we got have our own car at the destination (rentals are hard to come by right now), had the opportunity to visit with other friends and family and attractions along the way, and avoided the maddening mayhem of American airports right now.  It doesn't hurt that we paid about $2.89/gallon for gas along the way, which is way cheaper than in Europe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, F15Rules said:

That's just marketing-speak for Ultra Expensive!!

Dave

Like the term "Super Apochromat" which is being applied to a few refractor lines now ?

Back on the Morpheus range, does the actual AFoV of the 17.5mm Morpheus match the spec of 76 degrees ?. Has it been measured independently ?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sargares said:

Aye. I really don’t like barlows for the above reason, the faff, and the fact they usually throw the focus out miles. In this case it’ll only be 200 and 300 approx magnifications. 
 

the levitating above the eyepiece isn’t the end of the world for me though. Just a minor nuisance. 

Not a nuisance at all.  The Morpheus eyepieces come with an eyeguard extender, and you can even add another extender.

If you did that and used the rubber eyeguard in the UP position, you'd need to press hard into the eyeguard to even get to the exit pupil.

With Morpheus eyepieces, never a need to hover.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

Yes, our US cabin owner neighbors are here now and seem pretty happy to be back. It will sure be nice to be able to go to the US again. We're all double Pfizered up here.

Too early.  It's still not safe due to the spiking infections in most of the US.  Even fully vaccinated people are getting it, though vaccinated people only represent 1/10000 among the hospitalized.

But infected, but fully vaccinated, people can carry the same load of virus as the unvaccinated.

They've just approved of a 3rd dose of the Pfizer vaccine for the high risk individuals.

I'd wait until the case load on this current spike diminishes substantially before I'd even think about visiting the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, John said:

Like the term "Super Apochromat" which is being applied to a few refractor lines now ?

Back on the Morpheus range, does the actual AFoV of the 17.5mm Morpheus match the spec of 76 degrees ?. Has it been measured independently ?

 

 

Yes, it's been independently measured and no, it doesn't match specs claimed.  The 23.55mm field diameter they claim turns out to be ~21.7mm and the apparent field about 74° instead of 76 (all the other focal lengths are 78-79°).

Still, use the eyepiece, and it is so nice and pleasant to use, and sharp, and has such superb contrast, that that simply won't matter.   It became a favorite from the first hour I used one.  If you don't wear glasses, the 17mm Ethos is a tad better,

but then, it's, uh, a bit more expensive.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

Yes, it's been independently measured and no, it doesn't match specs claimed.  The 23.55mm field diameter they claim turns out to be ~21.7mm and the apparent field about 74° instead of 76 (all the other focal lengths are 78-79°).

Still, use the eyepiece, and it is so nice and pleasant to use, and sharp, and has such superb contrast, that that simply won't matter.   It became a favorite from the first hour I used one.  If you don't wear glasses, the 17mm Ethos is a tad better,

but then, it's, uh, a bit more expensive.

Thanks Don.

Have you compared the Morpheus 17.5mm to the 17.3mm Delos and / or the ES 17mm / 92 ?

(to save me the trouble of doing so !)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John said:

Thanks Don.

Have you compared the Morpheus 17.5mm to the 17.3mm Delos and / or the ES 17mm / 92 ?

(to save me the trouble of doing so !)

 

They are all nice eyepieces.  The Delos is probably the sharpest of the bunch at the very edge, but it requires even more in focus than the 17.5 Morpheus.

The ES 92° is a very nice eyepiece and has a comfortable eye relief, but I found the exit pupil more finicky to attain and hold compared to the others.

It's now by far the most expensive of the 3 here in the US, recently going to $800USD (only £410 in the UK) versus $259 (Morpheus) and $352 (Delos)

It's also by far the heaviest. of the 3.  And I see a little edge of field astigmatism at f/5.75 and f/5.18.  I haven't used it in a faster scope yet.

The "Critical f/ratio" at which the eyepiece begins to perform more poorly are f/3 (Delos), f/4.5 (Morpheus), and f/4.75+/- for the ES.

They can be used at shorter f/ratios, of course, but with lesser edge performance, even in a coma corrector.

The respective weights are:

Morpheus--305g

Delos--409g

ES 17x92--1159g

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

Yes, it's been independently measured and no, it doesn't match specs claimed.  The 23.55mm field diameter they claim turns out to be ~21.7mm and the apparent field about 74° instead of 76 (all the other focal lengths are 78-79°).

Still, use the eyepiece, and it is so nice and pleasant to use, and sharp, and has such superb contrast, that that simply won't matter.   It became a favorite from the first hour I used one.  If you don't wear glasses, the 17mm Ethos is a tad better,

but then, it's, uh, a bit more expensive.

With a measured field stop of 21.7 that gives a calculated AFOV of 71 degrees.

So a measured FOV of 74 gives geometric distortion of about +4.2%.

Sounds fairly high…  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

They are all nice eyepieces.  The Delos is probably the sharpest of the bunch at the very edge, but it requires even more in focus than the 17.5 Morpheus.

The ES 92° is a very nice eyepiece and has a comfortable eye relief, but I found the exit pupil more finicky to attain and hold compared to the others.

It's now by far the most expensive of the 3 here in the US, recently going to $800USD (only £410 in the UK) versus $259 (Morpheus) and $352 (Delos)

It's also by far the heaviest. of the 3.  And I see a little edge of field astigmatism at f/5.75 and f/5.18.  I haven't used it in a faster scope yet.

The "Critical f/ratio" at which the eyepiece begins to perform more poorly are f/3 (Delos), f/4.5 (Morpheus), and f/4.75+/- for the ES.

They can be used at shorter f/ratios, of course, but with lesser edge performance, even in a coma corrector.

The respective weights are:

Morpheus--305g

Delos--409g

ES 17x92--1159g

Wonderful summary Don - thanks again :thumbright:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, globular said:

With a measured field stop of 21.7 that gives a calculated AFOV of 71 degrees.

So a measured FOV of 74 gives geometric distortion of about +4.2%.

Sounds fairly high…  ?

4.2% difference isn't all that unusual in wide fields.  The 35mm Panoptic has about 7% distortion, and it is highly regarded.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some deliberation and reading through this thread i’ve clicked the button on the 12.5mm Morpheus: for use in my SW 12” flextube dob. I have OVL nirvanas in 4, 7, and 16mm and.  OMNI 32mm plossl. Next will be a ~24mm of some description.  The 32mm is like looking through a toilet roll tube compared to the nirvanas.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I am loking to purchase the attached Baader Coma corrector for my 300p to use in conjunction with my Morpheus EPS. I have a few questions if I may..

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/coma-correctors/baader-mpcc-visual-photographic-set.html

Is the coma corrector a permanent install on the scope or do you only use it when the need arises?

At the momnet I have a 2" 47mm clicklock on my scope with 2" to 1.25" clicklock reducer - This enabled me to do away with the standard 47mm extention provided with the scope. If I instal the CC will I need to do away with this combination or can I still use the clicklocks.  In fact I may do away with the 2" to 1.25 and use the Morphesus eps in 2" instead. Is there any benefit to doing this?

Will the CC change the focal length of my scope or does it just flatten the field?

Anyone have any experiance with this cc? Silly question but does it take away the slight comet shape I occasionally see of axis?

Thank you

Baz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ian2 said:

After some deliberation and reading through this thread i’ve clicked the button on the 12.5mm Morpheus: for use in my SW 12” flextube dob. I have OVL nirvanas in 4, 7, and 16mm and.  OMNI 32mm plossl. Next will be a ~24mm of some description.  The 32mm is like looking through a toilet roll tube compared to the nirvanas.

Did you order through FLO? I only ask as I was looking this morning and noticed the 12.5mm they had has now sold. I have the same scope and would like to know how this EP performs in it!

 

Baz

Edited by Barry-W-Fenner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.