TV Delos 12mm vs 13mm Nagler T6

[cajen2]

On 31/03/2023 at 21:00, nicholasastro said:

I have owned 13mm Nagler Type 6 and 13mm Ethos eyepieces. More recently, 13mm APM XWA and 12.5mm Morpheus, the latter being my preferred and most used eyepiece in that focal length - very good contrast and sharpness, and a sufficiently wide field of view for my needs.

I'm with you on this one: my Morph 12.5 mm is one of my favourite EPs: light, comfortable to use, good eye relief and no obvious EOF aberrations. I've just been reading a thread on CN where people were comparing the APM with other 12ish mm EPs and many people preferred the Morph over the APM.

[Pixies]

12 hours ago, cajen2 said:

I'm with you on this one: my Morph 12.5 mm is one of my favourite EPs: light, comfortable to use, good eye relief and no obvious EOF aberrations. I've just been reading a thread on CN where people were comparing the APM with other 12ish mm EPs and many people preferred the Morph over the APM.

Hi C,

 

Will you be bringing the Morph to Cwmdu? Could I get a shot of it to compare?

[cajen2]

42 minutes ago, Pixies said:

Hi C,

 

Will you be bringing the Morph to Cwmdu? Could I get a shot of it to compare?

Sure. I'm going to bring all the EPs that I currently use, including three Morphs, two Pentaxes , the 2"SL 80° and the Celestron Ultima Edge 30mm. You're welcome to try any/all of them.

[Highburymark]

I’ve had Delos 10, Delite 11, Nagler T6 11,  Ethos 13 and Morpheus 12.5 over the years. Optically, I’d put Delite and Delos marginally ahead of the others, very sharp and bright, aberrations superbly controlled in my scopes, though they are all top notch. I really liked the 11 Nagler, though unfortunately it’s been dropped from the range now. Many other people rate the 13mm as the best T6. 

[nicholasastro]

21 hours ago, Piero said:

Sorry mate, but the only times my docter is allowed to leave the eyepiece case is to comfortably sit on my feathertouches..

That's quite an endorsement for the Docter - judging by your response, looks like it blows away the 13mm APM XWA (can't say that I'm all that surprised). Appreciate your honesty.

[nicholasastro]

20 hours ago, cajen2 said:

I'm with you on this one: my Morph 12.5 mm is one of my favourite EPs: light, comfortable to use, good eye relief and no obvious EOF aberrations. I've just been reading a thread on CN where people were comparing the APM with other 12ish mm EPs and many people preferred the Morph over the APM.

I remember reading the same thread. I like the 17.5mm Morpheus the most followed by the 9mm and 12.5mm. All great eyepieces.

[Piero]

11 hours ago, nicholasastro said:

That's quite an endorsement for the Docter - judging by your response, looks like it blows away the 13mm APM XWA (can't say that I'm all that surprised). Appreciate your honesty.

I would not say "blows away". I have the 9, 7 and 4.88mm APM XWA and in my opinion they are great eyepieces.

To my eye the 12.5mm Docter is a nearly perfect eyepiece on many criteria, but its cost is considerably high for most people. I found mine in the second hand market at a sensible price for my wallet. If I didn't have one and the only option would be to buy new, I would get the 13mm APM XWA instead. That's what I meant previously.

[nicholasastro]

5 hours ago, Piero said:

I would not say "blows away". I have the 9, 7 and 4.88mm APM XWA and in my opinion they are great eyepieces.

To my eye the 12.5mm Docter is a nearly perfect eyepiece on many criteria, but its cost is considerably high for most people. I found mine in the second hand market at a sensible price for my wallet. If I didn't have one and the only option would be to buy new, I would get the 13mm APM XWA instead. That's what I meant previously.

Thanks for clarifying. I like the way the 13mm APM XWA performs on globular clusters on my set up but I do feel the 12.5mm Morpheus goes a touch further in detecting threshold objects. I suspect the 12.5mm Docter would take things a tiny step further forward, but like your good-self, there's no way I would buy new for potential marginal performance gain. 

[Piero]

3 minutes ago, nicholasastro said:

Thanks for clarifying. I like the way the 13mm APM XWA performs on globular clusters on my set up but I do feel the 12.5mm Morpheus goes a touch further in detecting threshold objects. I suspect the 12.5mm Docter would take things a tiny step further forward, but like your good-self, there's no way I would buy new for potential marginal performance gain. 

 

In the past I used to pay quite a lot of attention (and money!) in order to go as much deep as possible changing eyepieces. It is an exercise which works up to a certain point, but in the end of the day, if you really want to go deeper, increasing aperture is a better way to go, in my opinion at least. I have a 4" Tak refractor and this gives exquisite images with the Docter or Zeiss zoom. My 8" skywatcher dobson (when collimated) with a 25mm Plossl beats it hands down as far as going deep concerns. My 12" f6 dobson shows stuff to another level and the 16" goes even beyond. Don't get me wrong, I like using high quality eyepieces. It's just that there are some very nice eyepieces out there today to make people happy without spending a fortune and the big difference is by jumping between apertures. Even though I don't have a 100 deg AFOV addiction, I must say that the 3 APM XWA I have work very well in my PC2-corrected 16" f4 dob and I find them more comfortable to use than the delos 8, 6 and 4.5mm I also have (and need to sell) in terms of finding and observing targets at +200x whilst minimising the nudging of the telescope.

[jetstream]

7 minutes ago, Piero said:

if you really want to go deeper, increasing aperture is a better way to go, in my opinion at least. I

100% agree Piero. Put an average eyepiece in my 24" and it will go much deeper than the best eyepiece in my 15".  When going truly deep with these 2 dobs I use the Docter barlowed, the 10mm Delos but I always find myself confirming things with an ortho.

 

[Piero]

1 minute ago, jetstream said:

100% agree Piero. Put an average eyepiece in my 24" and it will go much deeper than the best eyepiece in my 15".  When going truly deep with these 2 dobs I use the Docter barlowed, the 10mm Delos but I always find myself confirming things with an ortho.

 

Also worth mentioning that you have encoders in your 24".  

[jetstream]

5 minutes ago, Piero said:

 

Also worth mentioning that you have encoders in your 24".  

Yes for sure, and also on the 15". It amazes me that he old school SkyCommander can locate and more importantly re locate very small PN, galaxies using an ortho with tiny TFOV. Its too bad these are no longer available.

My most used 100 deg is the 20mm APM, edge astig and all.

My 10BCO does very well in its deep role eventhough I know you had a poor copy of one or it just didnt work for you. I use mine barlowed to check very faint observations.

Edited April 3, 2023 by jetstream

[Piero]

4 hours ago, jetstream said:

Yes for sure, and also on the 15". It amazes me that he old school SkyCommander can locate and more importantly re locate very small PN, galaxies using an ortho with tiny TFOV. Its too bad these are no longer available.

My most used 100 deg is the 20mm APM, edge astig and all.

My 10BCO does very well in its deep role eventhough I know you had a poor copy of one or it just didnt work for you. I use mine barlowed to check very faint observations.

 

I remember you like your 10 bco a lot. The only other ortho I tried is the 5mm Fujiyama. That is a good eyepiece but yeah, I have found out that 42 deg is too much claustrophobic to my eye. My 5mm is in Italy now and it is part of a minimal eyepiece set used with my 8" skywatcher dob. I also sold the HRs and when I have more time, I will sell 3 delos too. Nowadays, I am fully happy with XWAs, naglers, docter, ZZ, UFF and a Pan.

[nicholasastro]

8 hours ago, Piero said:

 

In the past I used to pay quite a lot of attention (and money!) in order to go as much deep as possible changing eyepieces. It is an exercise which works up to a certain point, but in the end of the day, if you really want to go deeper, increasing aperture is a better way to go, in my opinion at least. I have a 4" Tak refractor and this gives exquisite images with the Docter or Zeiss zoom. My 8" skywatcher dobson (when collimated) with a 25mm Plossl beats it hands down as far as going deep concerns. My 12" f6 dobson shows stuff to another level and the 16" goes even beyond. Don't get me wrong, I like using high quality eyepieces. It's just that there are some very nice eyepieces out there today to make people happy without spending a fortune and the big difference is by jumping between apertures. Even though I don't have a 100 deg AFOV addiction, I must say that the 3 APM XWA I have work very well in my PC2-corrected 16" f4 dob and I find them more comfortable to use than the delos 8, 6 and 4.5mm I also have (and need to sell) in terms of finding and observing targets at +200x whilst minimising the nudging of the telescope.

Yes Piero, I understand what you are saying. I am also using a 16" dobsonian. It would be impractical to increase aperture in my case. However, what would help would be to observe from a darker site as there is some light pollution where I am. I recall observing from Kelling Heath (North Norfolk coast) where the sky used to be pretty dark, and viewing galaxies in a 10" scope that I struggle to detect where I live using my 16", which by the way, is a quality instrument.

I like your strategy to deploy your three higher power APM XWAs to pull out small faint objects. I can see how this would work, as the background becomes darker when you detect and observe at 200x+. I can also see the benefit of a 100 degree eyepiece to enable you to maximise viewing time before an object disappears from the field of view. I'm guessing you don't see much (if any) difference in performance between XWA and Ethos eyepieces? I used to own a 13mm Ethos but this was before buying my 13mm APM XWA so I couldn't do side by side comparisons etc. It's great to see that the APM XWAs are working out so well for you. I can see how they can complement other eyepieces even when at the same/similar focal lengths. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

[nicholasastro]

8 hours ago, jetstream said:

My most used 100 deg is the 20mm APM, edge astig and all.

 

Same here. The 20mm APM XWA is actually my favourite 100 degree eyepiece and I would never sell it. I had my best ever views of M13 through it - simply stunning at 102x in my 16" dob. I asked my family to give their opinions and they also felt it presented the best view of this object, having also viewed through Pentax and Morpheus eyepieces - that's saying something as my favourite widefield lines are Pentax and Morpheus! 

[Don Pensack]

9 minutes ago, nicholasastro said:

Same here. The 20mm APM XWA is actually my favourite 100 degree eyepiece and I would never sell it. I had my best ever views of M13 through it - simply stunning at 102x in my 16" dob. I asked my family to give their opinions and they also felt it presented the best view of this object, having also viewed through Pentax and Morpheus eyepieces - that's saying something as my favourite widefield lines are Pentax and Morpheus! 

102x is a very low power to view M13.  My best view is at 304x.  It's also the best magnification for IC4617 and NGC6207 nearby.

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, nicholasastro said:

Same here. The 20mm APM XWA is actually my favourite 100 degree eyepiece and I would never sell it.

Its very good isnt it!  I have had amazing views of the Veil nebula and so much more with it. I like you, obs M13 with it and it shows the propeller nicely. Another favourite in the 15" with it is Carolines Rose and so much more. Mine actually stays in the focuser of the 15" up in the seacan.

[nicholasastro]

6 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

102x is a very low power to view M13.  My best view is at 304x.  It's also the best magnification for IC4617 and NGC6207 nearby.

It was Al Nagler who first made me appreciate the value of observing the brighter globular clusters at low power. His advice at the time was to use c. 150x. Lovely pin point stars and M13 fully resolved in the 20mm APM XWA. The neighbouring galaxies are obviously best served at higher powers Don.

[nicholasastro]

4 hours ago, jetstream said:

Mine actually stays in the focuser of the 15" up in the seacan.

I can fully appreciate that! 🙂

[nicholasastro]

1 hour ago, nicholasastro said:

It was Al Nagler who first made me appreciate the value of observing the brighter globular clusters at low power. His advice at the time was to use c. 150x. Lovely pin point stars and M13 fully resolved in the 20mm APM XWA. The neighbouring galaxies are obviously best served at higher powers Don.

That's not to say that I don't use higher powers on such objects - typically between 100x and 300x but I do enjoy the low power views for reasons explained by Al.

[Piero]

9 hours ago, nicholasastro said:

Yes Piero, I understand what you are saying. I am also using a 16" dobsonian. It would be impractical to increase aperture in my case. However, what would help would be to observe from a darker site as there is some light pollution where I am. I recall observing from Kelling Heath (North Norfolk coast) where the sky used to be pretty dark, and viewing galaxies in a 10" scope that I struggle to detect where I live using my 16", which by the way, is a quality instrument.

I like your strategy to deploy your three higher power APM XWAs to pull out small faint objects. I can see how this would work, as the background becomes darker when you detect and observe at 200x+. I can also see the benefit of a 100 degree eyepiece to enable you to maximise viewing time before an object disappears from the field of view. I'm guessing you don't see much (if any) difference in performance between XWA and Ethos eyepieces? I used to own a 13mm Ethos but this was before buying my 13mm APM XWA so I couldn't do side by side comparisons etc. It's great to see that the APM XWAs are working out so well for you. I can see how they can complement other eyepieces even when at the same/similar focal lengths. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

Yes, you are correct: aperture and dark skies. I should have mentioned dark skies previously as they are both required to maximise the impact.

 

I haven't ever tried an Ethos, but in terms of optical quality, I don't feel that the 9mm, 7mm and 4.88mm APM XWAs are significantly behind (or behind at all) the TV Delos I have. With my 16", I often use the 9mm (=2mm exit pupil) to search and observe targets. Depending on the target, I might then increase or decrease the magnification. For low power I use a 22NT4 which I feel comfortable for panoramic observing of large-ish targets. It is certainly not my most used eyepiece, but it has ergonomics similar to the docter (e.g. large e.r, 82-84 deg AFOV, size, height), so I find that the pair works well.

[nicholasastro]

2 hours ago, Piero said:

Yes, you are correct: aperture and dark skies. I should have mentioned dark skies previously as they are both required to maximise the impact.

 

I haven't ever tried an Ethos, but in terms of optical quality, I don't feel that the 9mm, 7mm and 4.88mm APM XWAs are significantly behind (or behind at all) the TV Delos I have. With my 16", I often use the 9mm (=2mm exit pupil) to search and observe targets. Depending on the target, I might then increase or decrease the magnification. For low power I use a 22NT4 which I feel comfortable for panoramic observing of large-ish targets. It is certainly not my most used eyepiece, but it has ergonomics similar to the docter (e.g. large e.r, 82-84 deg AFOV, size, height), so I find that the pair works well.

That's really interesting feedback and it's great that the APM XWAs (9, 7 and 4.88mm) perform so well when compared with premium Televue eyepieces.

I had a suspicion that you would mainly be using your 9mm XWA as your primary finder eyepiece for small faint objects - that's exactly what I would be doing on my 16" set up. I was actually going to ask you about that, so you preempted my question! I think you have a very nice line up of eyepieces 🙂

[Don Pensack]

14 hours ago, nicholasastro said:

It was Al Nagler who first made me appreciate the value of observing the brighter globular clusters at low power. His advice at the time was to use c. 150x. Lovely pin point stars and M13 fully resolved in the 20mm APM XWA. The neighbouring galaxies are obviously best served at higher powers Don.

Note that Al observes with scopes with wide fields and short focal lengths.

I do use lower powers (80-150x) to view the IFN next to M13, but I see a lot more stars in the cluster at higher powers, where fainter stars become visible.

The area is nice no matter what the power.

 

M14 is an example of my point.

At 60x, a few stars are scattered here and there on a nebulous background.

At 150x, there are now stars across the face and the background behind them is somewhat grainy.

At 300x, the cluster becomes a massive ball of stars and the haziness has disappeared.

However, as we all know, you have to have the seeing quality to be able to see sharp stars at 300x.

[nicholasastro]

17 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Note that Al observes with scopes with wide fields and short focal lengths.

I do use lower powers (80-150x) to view the IFN next to M13, but I see a lot more stars in the cluster at higher powers, where fainter stars become visible.

The area is nice no matter what the power.

 

M14 is an example of my point.

At 60x, a few stars are scattered here and there on a nebulous background.

At 150x, there are now stars across the face and the background behind them is somewhat grainy.

At 300x, the cluster becomes a massive ball of stars and the haziness has disappeared.

However, as we all know, you have to have the seeing quality to be able to see sharp stars at 300x.

He enjoys lower powers for best exploiting the possibility to see 'pin point' stars. Of course, we all understand that and can appreciate the beauty of the brighter GCs when observed in this way.

I find with apertures 16" and upwards that you don't actually need a great deal of magnification to resolve the brightest and largest GCs.

Like yourself, I love the views from 80-150x but still reach out for either a 10, 9 or 7mm eyepiece depending on the conditions for a different perspective. Above 250x, I find the reduction in brightness and contrast less satisfying though, even with 16" of aperture. These days, I tend to stop at around 282x (13mm APM XWA and 1.8x TMB ED Barlow).

As you know, different objects work best at different magnifications, and in the case of smaller and fainter GCs in particular, it's fairly obvious that no one focal length fits all.

By the way, by some strange coincidence, Thomas Back of TMB Optical also used to tell me - before his very sad passing - that he preferred around 150x on bright GCs using his 20" Starmaster and large TMB APOs.

Thanks for your comments Don.

Edited April 5, 2023 by nicholasastro

[jetstream]

12 hours ago, nicholasastro said:

I find with apertures 16" and upwards that you don't actually need a great deal of magnification to resolve the brightest and largest GCs.

👍

I've played with the mags quite a bit on M13 etc and in long FL scopes such as the 15" f4.8 like the 20mm APM 100 a lot. Depending on the object the 17 Nikon HW also gets the nod.

Have you seen the "propeller" feature in M13 Nicholas? I just love it and always go for it.

I find GCs dazzling to view and can be mind boggling in my 24". Oddly I enjoy the brighter objects in that scope as it really brings them alive. Faint fuzzies will always be faint fuzzies in any scope and there are no end to them. One 'prize" , well almost I guess was seeing the lensing galaxy and one flick of light held for a couple of seconds in Einsteins Cross. I figured Id dance right into that object and see them all at once, easily... yeah right lol!

To @Pixies sorry to go off topic, Gerry