Jump to content


Photo

Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#76 astro_baby

astro_baby

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

Any opinions on how they compare with the BGOs ?

#77 Lance1234

Lance1234

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:13 AM

...If I have any nostalgia at all for the old days (and I have about as little as it's possible to have), it's for smooth-sided eyepiece barrels and brass setscrews tightening against the barrels. Worked great. Left marks. And no one cared.



Don, you're showing your youth...in the old days...we didn't even HAVE set screws. :roflmao:

#78 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22595
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:36 AM

...If I have any nostalgia at all for the old days (and I have about as little as it's possible to have), it's for smooth-sided eyepiece barrels and brass setscrews tightening against the barrels. Worked great. Left marks. And no one cared.



Don, you're showing your youth...in the old days...we didn't even HAVE set screws. :roflmao:

I was referring to the high end stuff at the time. My first scope (an Edmund 4.25" EQ reflector) had a spring steel drawtube in the focuser in which a couple cuts in the steel created pressure tabs that pressed against the eyepiece. You had to press the eyepiece in because the tabs pressed against the eyepiece quite tightly.
I've also seen this technique used on a lot of 19th century brass scopes.
If you were lucky, those tabs had small dimples in them so the scratches in the eyepiece barrels were small lines instead of gouges.
My 1970 Unitron had setscrews, houwever.

#79 rguasto

rguasto

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Long Island, NY

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

My main scope still has a 'slip fit' brass insert in the (52 year-old) :o focuser with slits that apply pressure on the EP barrel.

#80 Lance1234

Lance1234

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:29 PM

I was referring to the high end stuff at the time. My first scope (an Edmund 4.25" EQ reflector) had a spring steel drawtube in the focuser in which a couple cuts in the steel created pressure tabs that pressed against the eyepiece. You had to press the eyepiece in because the tabs pressed against the eyepiece quite tightly.
I've also seen this technique used on a lot of 19th century brass scopes.
If you were lucky, those tabs had small dimples in them so the scratches in the eyepiece barrels were small lines instead of gouges.
My 1970 Unitron had setscrews, houwever.

Interesting, I never ran across the spring steel focusers. My first scope was also an Edmund 4.25", circa mid 1960's; and it just had a smooth draw tube, no spring steel. Must have been an earlier or later version than the one you had (loved that scope!). Also the top of the line Telescopics focuser that I bought when I assembled my 6" in late '60s also just had a smooth draw tube (I actually found a link to their catalog - http://geogdata.csun...lescopics.pdf).

Changing subjects, it would be interesting to know how many people Edmunds introduced to the hobby.

#81 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

Today I tried the Q-Turret on my PST. Needed to add the Q-Barlow element to the Trurret's bottom tube for any eyepiece to come to focus in the PST however. Had a lot of fun with the turret on the PST as well...plus plain looks cool. I placed my 35 Ultrascopic, 25-20-17 Sterlings in the Q-Turret with its Barlow and went to town solar observing. Really liking the convenience of the Turret.

Attached Files



#82 Eigen

Eigen

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:54 PM

That turret does look good BillP. To be honest I was focused on the EP's, I wasn't even considering the turret. I am now reconsidering. :)

#83 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22595
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:37 PM

I was referring to the high end stuff at the time. My first scope (an Edmund 4.25" EQ reflector) had a spring steel drawtube in the focuser in which a couple cuts in the steel created pressure tabs that pressed against the eyepiece. You had to press the eyepiece in because the tabs pressed against the eyepiece quite tightly.
I've also seen this technique used on a lot of 19th century brass scopes.
If you were lucky, those tabs had small dimples in them so the scratches in the eyepiece barrels were small lines instead of gouges.
My 1970 Unitron had setscrews, houwever.

Interesting, I never ran across the spring steel focusers. My first scope was also an Edmund 4.25", circa mid 1960's; and it just had a smooth draw tube, no spring steel. Must have been an earlier or later version than the one you had (loved that scope!). Also the top of the line Telescopics focuser that I bought when I assembled my 6" in late '60s also just had a smooth draw tube (I actually found a link to their catalog - http://geogdata.csun...lescopics.pdf).

Changing subjects, it would be interesting to know how many people Edmunds introduced to the hobby.

Mine was from 1963. I attach a drawing of the focuser drawtube where the eyepiece goes in.

Attached Files



#84 rguasto

rguasto

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Long Island, NY

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

like this? Sorry, but this is the only picture I can find right now.

Attached Files



#85 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22595
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:20 PM

Just like that. Setscrews actually scratched LESS.

#86 Lance1234

Lance1234

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:30 PM

Mine was from 1963. I attach a drawing of the focuser drawtube where the eyepiece goes in.


Hmmm, I don't remember it looking like that, but then, there's a whole lota things I don't remember :question:

Back on topic, I have a 10mm & 18mm BCO on the way. It will be fun comparing them to other eyepieces.

#87 simpleisbetter

simpleisbetter

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2011

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:17 PM

Yep, I've meant replace all my focuser and diagonal setscrews with nylon ones. One of these days.

Mike


I think that is a good idea! Save the eyepieces from set screw dimples.

Anyway, I just got my set yesterday :jump: Really cool packaging...and not one box but two!! The whole setup is nicely arranged in a tin box, and the tin box comes in a paper box with all sorts of pics and instructions and stuff written on it. 30 years from now I can see the used market ads now as to the "rare" set that comes with both boxes :lol:

I had not seen the Q-Turret before in the flesh. The tubes that hold the eyepieces and the tube that inserts in the focuser are metal, the rest of the unit is some sort of polymer. I appears sturdy and the position lock mechanisms seem robust enough to handle frequent use. I was happy to see this as was unsure how robust the unit would be. I knew it was not all metal construction...how could it be at such a low price for a complete system with eyepieces! Anyway, should be clear tonight so am looking forward to giving it a spin (pardon the pun) tonight and to see how these 4 eyepieces and Barlow perform as a complete 1.25" solution.


Curious there's such a variation on the Q-Turret in the first batch. I just received my set today and the top barrels that hold the eyepieces are plastic like the turret housing. The only metal on the turret is the bottom barrel that goes into the diagonal/focuser.

Now, how do I like them? I like them. I had an hour or so tonight with them, seeing was terrible, but a few moments here and there it settled. I can say they're at least as sharp as any other, with the 6mm BCO equaling an 8mm TV Plossl on sharpness. Light throughput is excellent, brighter than many eyepieces; color is excellent, being neutral, but showing actual colors very vividly with good saturation. Just about what one would want in a planetary eyepiece set.

The barlow is excellent, in both configurations, and is going to be a nice addition. Easily as good as any modern barlow. Only downside I noticed is the barlow, when used in 2.5x mode, vignettes in the 18mm BCO (and I would assume the 32mm also). But those two I won't be barlowing much anyway.

The Q-Turret, for all purposes, is well made and will work nicely for most. And the eyepieces require enough backfocus that focus is easily achieved with the turret in place (C6R, GSO 2-speed crayford, 2" diagonal). But, on my C6R, there are a couple issues though. Due to the diagonal setscrew, I can't mount it with the unused eyepieces toward the tube keeping the eyepieces out of the way. And being left eye dominant, my finder is on the left side. I'm going to try remounting the finder on the right side of the focuser so we'll see. Otherwise, these are nothing more than user-specific issues. Nothing against the turret itself.

So what do I not like about them? Only minor criticisms, except one. Because of how the eyepieces are shipped, installed in the turret within the tin box, their barrels were scratched by the turret setscrews. Note I'm not directing this criticism at Manish, but rather Baader for how they ship them. And yes, I'll also be going to Lowes to pick up some nylon setscrews.

The other criticisms are minor. I don't like the wings on the eyeguards and might cut them off. That or remove the eyeguards altogether and get smaller endcaps that fit the naked barrels. As for the 32mm, it's nice...but... it just doesn't move me as much as my 36mm Hyperion on low power viewing. Personally, I'd like to see Baader replace the 32mm with a shorter focal length ortho, something like an 8mm which will give 3.5mm barlowed, allowing better spread and closer incremental steps at high power.

Other than those few minor complaints, I have nothing bad to say about the eyepieces. Viewing the Moon, Jupiter, and a few select double stars and clusters tonight was very pleasing. As for the turret, we'll see if I can make it work well for me. Fortunately though, I have a good planetary set now to complement my Hyperions (DSO set). They'll easily replace my decent, but problematic TMB II's (which have begun growing mold between the elements after I cemented all the rattle prone locking collars).

#88 astro_baby

astro_baby

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

Starman.....the older TAL newts had that kind of drawtube as well. Back in the day of course no one cared about scratches and people used go keep EPs in their coat pockets while observing very often.

#89 Ain Soph Aur

Ain Soph Aur

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

I have been using the Q-Turret for the past two evenings and am very pleased with the perfomance. I have been using parfocal Brandon EPs with the turret and am only having an issue with head space with the 8mm. I suspect this will be resolved when I add the Q-Barlow next month and keep the 32-24-16-12 in the turret.

A secondary issue I have had is inward focus using a rather large 2" Baader 2" Click-lock diagonal on the custom 4" Carton/Crawmach OTA. Most of my EP's will focus but a few will not, the Meade RG for example. I am planning on moving to a Baader T-2 prism over the next few months which should resolve this. Last year I sent the tube back to Crawmach to have 2" removed, and am glad I did this. I don't believe my EP's would have come to focus in either the Baader 2" Click-lock or the Herschel otherwise.

When the turret first arrived, I was concerned that the EP holders were not metal, but see that Bill subsequently posted that he was mistaken when he posted that his example had these. Although the turrent is mainly non-metal, I am very pleased with the mechanical performance. It is easy to rotate and the click locks are about perfect. Not too tight or too loose.

The Q-Turret has allowed me to quickly determine that an old UO circle T 25mm Ortho surpasses the Brandon's on showing Solar ganulation with the Baader Herschel. Quickly swapping between the Brandon 24mm and UO 25mm, it isn't a contest. On the moon and double stars, the Brandon is superior.

I want to thank EyepiecesEtc for the quick shipping of the turret, and supplying both the tin and cardboard cases!

#90 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16223
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:07 AM

Bill,

I had not seen the Q-Turret before in the flesh. The tubes that hold the eyepieces and the tube that inserts in the focuser are metal, the rest of the unit is some sort of polymer. I appears sturdy and the position lock mechanisms seem robust enough to handle frequent use. I was happy to see this as was unsure how robust the unit would be. I knew it was not all metal construction...how could it be at such a low price for a complete system with eyepieces!


Are you sure about the material of the Q-Turret? On mine, the only parts that I am certain are metal are the setscrews and their settings on the eyepiece tubes, and the central bolt and screw that holds the Q-Turret together. I can see the lines from the molds on the eyepiece barrels. The top and bottom plates of the Q-Turret and the eyepiece barrels are definitely some sort of polymer.

The tube that goes in the focuser is not steel, because it won't attract a magnet. I don't think it's aluminum. Maybe Delrin? It doesn't feel like metal to me. On the other hand, it does not have a mold line like the eyepiece barrels.

But in any event, my Q-Turret seems to be durable and easy to use. I had it on my 90mm Mak last night. The turret switches easily from eyepiece to eyepiece. Each eyepiece barrel is accurately centered when set over the central hole. The position locking mechanisms are more secure and give better tactile feedback than in a three-position turret I already have.

Of course the Q-Turret does require more room on the telescope than the three-turret. I could barely find a position on my 90mm Mak in which the Q-Turret did not get in the way of my finder mount. I wanted to avoid having the eyepieces on the Q-Turret be in the way of my breath. That could contaminate the lenses or at the least, fog them up on cold nights. I finally had to remove the finder completely to allow enough space for the Q-Turret. So if I use a turret again on the 90mm, I'll be using the smaller three-turret rather than the Q-Turret.

This should not be a concern for larger telescopes, though, and not even for all small ones. But it is important to position the Q-Turret so the three eyepieces that are not being used at the time are above the central hole. Otherwise the observer's breath could fog the eyepieces.

Mike

#91 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:28 AM

[quoteCurious there's such a variation on the Q-Turret in the first batch. I just received my set today and the top barrels that hold the eyepieces are plastic like the turret housing. The only metal on the turret is the bottom barrel that goes into the diagonal/focuser. [/quote]

That was my mistake...corrected it in a post afterwards. Mine are not metal either.

FYI, used the turret on the SCT last evening. This time though using other eyepieces (35 Ultrascopic, 25 Sterling, 17 Sterling, and 12.5 Sterling). Performed like a charm. And again, made for a very enjoyable observing experience not having to go to an eyepiece case all the time.

#92 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22595
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:14 AM

Gentlepeople,
I had a turret on my Unitron back in the early '70s when I lived in Indiana, the place with liquid air, the closest resemblance to a Louisiana swamp north of Louisiana.
I prevented fogging on the unused eyepieces while they were in the turret by keeping them lightly capped until use. Then I'd simply move the cap from the one I wanted to use to the one I just finished using.
That way my breath never fogged them up and they didn't dew up while I wasn't using them.
Because any uncovered eyepiece will dew up if you're not covering the lens.
Of course, keeping them from fogging up from your eye only a few millimeters away is a different story.

#93 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16223
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

Don,

If possible, I think it's best to position the three eyepiece barrels that are not being used above the focuser. That way, the observer's nose and mouth will be below all the eyepieces, and breath will not go directly onto any lenses. But then, if the night is dewy, it still might be a good idea to cap the eyepieces that you are not using at the moment.

FWIW, although I observe in a very dewy area, I don't recall an eyepiece ever fogging up from just being near my eye. And I observe with some very short focal length eyepieces. Even recently when I was using my XO's to split the Pup at my dark site, those eyepieces didn't fog from my eye. Of course, I do wrap a dew strip around the focuser near the eyepiece, so that's probably enough to prevent dewing or fogging, even from the observer's eye.

Mike

#94 Ain Soph Aur

Ain Soph Aur

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:03 PM

when I lived in Indiana, the place with liquid air, the closest resemblance to a Louisiana swamp north of Louisiana.


Living around Memphis, we'll lay claim to the 2'nd place liquid air competition. :)

I prevented fogging on the unused eyepieces while they were in the turret by keeping them lightly capped until use. Then I'd simply move the cap from the one I wanted to use to the one I just finished using.
That way my breath never fogged them up and they didn't dew up while I wasn't using them.


On my refractor, the turret is mounted in a position where I don't have to worry about breath fogging up the eyepeieces but I have been keeping the very convenient caps that are supplied with the Brandons on all unused EPs. These caps fit perfectly inside the eye guards and makes for quick and easy swapping between the currently used EP and the 3 unused.

I am very pleased with the turret so far. Hopefully the interrnal rotating and locking mechanism is robust and doesn't loosen up with use. This is an awesome accessory especially when used with parfocal EPs and is very convenient for planetary/solar/lunar/double star observing when one may be constantly switching between EPs and comparing for the best view.

#95 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22595
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

Don,

If possible, I think it's best to position the three eyepiece barrels that are not being used above the focuser. That way, the observer's nose and mouth will be below all the eyepieces, and breath will not go directly onto any lenses. But then, if the night is dewy, it still might be a good idea to cap the eyepieces that you are not using at the moment.

FWIW, although I observe in a very dewy area, I don't recall an eyepiece ever fogging up from just being near my eye. And I observe with some very short focal length eyepieces. Even recently when I was using my XO's to split the Pup at my dark site, those eyepieces didn't fog from my eye. Of course, I do wrap a dew strip around the focuser near the eyepiece, so that's probably enough to prevent dewing or fogging, even from the observer's eye.

Mike

The coldest I've observed out here in CA is about 5 degrees. And the dry air doesn't lend itself to fogging eyepieces. But when I lived in Indiana, I often observed in the winter when it was below zero, and the mere proximity of my warm, moist, eye was enough to not only cause instant fog on the eyepiece, but often frost! The only cure was warming the eyepiece in a pocket. We didn't have eyepiece heater cords then.

#96 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16223
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

Maybe that is the difference. I never observe when it is that cold. That's just not going to happen. The '20's is cold enough for me. And I'd rather not go out if it's at all below freezing. There is nothing I want to see that is worth getting that cold for. My hands cannot handle it. (Please no suggestions from anyone about solutions. Been there, done that, doesn't work ... for me.)

Mike

#97 PJ Anway

PJ Anway

    Double-Star Observer

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2003
  • Loc: North Coast

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:19 PM

My first scope (an Edmund 4.25" EQ reflector) had a spring steel drawtube in the focuser in which a couple cuts in the steel created pressure tabs that pressed against the eyepiece. You had to press the eyepiece in because the tabs pressed against the eyepiece quite tightly.
I've also seen this technique used on a lot of 19th century brass scopes.
If you were lucky, those tabs had small dimples in them so the scratches in the eyepiece barrels were small lines instead of gouges.


My Vernonscope 2X barlow is like that and it works quite well. - Pic:

**** Back on topic I have the 18mm, 10mm & 6mm BCO's coming this week.

Attached Files



#98 simpleisbetter

simpleisbetter

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2011

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

Curious there's such a variation on the Q-Turret in the first batch. I just received my set today and the top barrels that hold the eyepieces are plastic like the turret housing. The only metal on the turret is the bottom barrel that goes into the diagonal/focuser.


That was my mistake...corrected it in a post afterwards. Mine are not metal either.

FYI, used the turret on the SCT last evening. This time though using other eyepieces (35 Ultrascopic, 25 Sterling, 17 Sterling, and 12.5 Sterling). Performed like a charm. And again, made for a very enjoyable observing experience not having to go to an eyepiece case all the time.


Sorry Bill, missed that post first time around. I agree, the turret works pretty well, just have to adjust my scope to work with it.

#99 ngc2289

ngc2289

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3481
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Corpus Christi, TX.

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

Well I just ordered a 10mm from Agena Astro. I am going to compare the BCO to an old 10.2mm UO ortho. I own. But even if the BCO proves to be better (or inferior)I am going to keep both. :grin: :waytogo:

#100 Ain Soph Aur

Ain Soph Aur

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:49 AM

I spent the afternoon collimating the ES Comet Hunter and was able to try out the Q-Turret with this scope this evening. Very nice.

Now to see if I have enough room on the C8 to conveniently mount the turret. With the Baader click-lock visual back and Baader 2" Click-lock Diagonal, I suspect this will not be a problem.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics