Jump to content


Photo

Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#101 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2008
  • Loc: San Diego Ca.

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

OPT has the orthos in stock but not the Plossl. I have a 18 BCO on backorder with them and should be getting it Wed! David

#102 stevetaylor199

stevetaylor199

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2011
  • Loc: SE Wisconsin

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:01 PM

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.

#103 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:20 PM

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.

The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.

#104 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: South West England

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:52 PM

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.

The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.


I don't find the edge that sharp when using this eyepiece with my F/6.5 and F/7.5 ED refractors to be honest. It's sharp for 90% or so but not 100%.

I'd estimate the apparent field of view at 45 degrees as well.

So far, for me, the 18mm ortho is the best eyepiece of this set.

#105 Peter Natscher

Peter Natscher

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Central Coast California

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:57 PM

Gee, has this topic gone off into an examination of any eyepiece that comes to mind? The OP, and I, would like to know about anyone's actual use of a BCO since being delivered this past week or two, not yadda-yadda-yadda. Seeesh! :nonono:

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.

The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.


I don't find the edge that sharp when using this eyepiece with my F/6.5 and F/7.5 ED refractors to be honest. It's sharp for 90% or so but not 100%.

I'd estimate the apparent field of view at 45 degrees as well.

So far, for me, the 18mm ortho is the best eyepiece of this set.



#106 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: South West England

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

Gee, has this topic gone off into an examination of any eyepiece that comes to mind? The OP, and I, would like to know about anyone's actual use of a BCO since being delivered this past week or two, not yadda-yadda-yadda. Seeesh! :nonono:...


I've used the Baader Classic 32mm plossl, the 3 orthos and the 2.25x Q-Turret barlow over the past 7 days.

My comments are based on what I've actually experienced with them, not just "yadda-yadda-yadda" :)

#107 stevetaylor199

stevetaylor199

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2011
  • Loc: SE Wisconsin

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:36 PM

Thanks, Don and John. Peter, the 32mm Plossl I asked about is part of the BCO set.

Edit to add: Now, why the 32mm is the oddball with a Plossl design is a question I can't recall ever seeing answered. I wonder why Baader didn't make this an ortho as well.

#108 Peter Natscher

Peter Natscher

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Central Coast California

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:22 PM

No offense but most of the replies to the OP's question about BCO's have been way off topic (i.e., Plossl's, Q-Turret, compression rings, etc.). :smash:

#109 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

:gotpopcorn:

#110 Peter Natscher

Peter Natscher

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Central Coast California

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

:gotpopcorn: :gotpopcorn: :gotpopcorn: :gotpopcorn: :imawake:

:gotpopcorn:



#111 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:41 AM

OK, I can't take the pressure any more. I'll come clean with my comparo.

The same night I took out my 90mm Mak and the Q-Turret, of course I had four eyepieces along with me, too. They were the BGO 9, SF (Sheldon Faworski) Ortho 10.5, TV Plossl 11 ... and the BCO 10. According to Clear Sky Chart, the seeing was supposed to be "poor," but I think it was better than that. I'd give it about a 3.5 to 4 out of five. The Moon was one day past first quarter.

Except for the BGO 9, the eyepieces were nearly parfocal. I just needed to move two of them up a little in the focuser holders. Then I could switch the Q-Turret quickly and easily among the BCO 10, SF 10.5 and TV Plossl 11. For the BGO 9, I had to use the focus knob on the 90mm Mak.

The magnifications and exit pupils were:

BGO 9 _____ 167x _____ 0.9mm
BCO 10 ____ 150x _____ 1.0mm
SF 10.5 ____ 143x _____ 1.1mm
TV 11 ______ 136x _____ 1.1mm

First I observed the Moon. All four eyepieces gave a comparable view of the lunar surface. I couldn't find any detail that was visible in any of the four eyepieces that wasn't visible in all four. But the TV Plossl 11 gave me the most pleasing presentation. There was something about it that was just more "contrasty."

I looked for some detail that was seen in the TeleVue that I couldn't see in any of the others, but there wasn't any. Somehow, though, the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? :grin: The 11mm is one of the newer TV Plossls, with the undercut. I was surprised, because my previous experience binoviewing the Moon in my 10" and 8" Dobs with a pair of new TV Plossl 25mm (at 12mm or shorter due to an OCA) was nothing special. In those cases, I preferred pairs of BGO's or even SA LERs. Maybe I should try binoviewing the Moon with my shorter focal length TV Plossls?

Next I turned to Jupiter. All four Galilean moons were lined up to the west of the planet. They were about equally spaced. A nice show. I could tell they were not stars, though they were not quite resolved as disks. The NEB and SEB were obvious and easy. The polar regions were also not difficult. When the seeing cleared a bit, I could begin to make out a few more bands. Switching among the eyepieces, I could discern no variation in the level of detail or perceived contrast. Especially when switching quickly among the three "parfocal" eyepieces, no differences were seen in the images. Even the magnifications were close enough that the size of the disk did not change appreciably.

I wouldn't want to make a final judgment based on this comparo. Smaller apertures often cannot show the subtle differences among eyepieces that larger ones can. And the seeing was only mediocre. A better comparo would be in a larger aperture during better seeing. But that night was cold and I knew the seeing wasn't the best. That's why I took out the 90mm, and not my 8" or 10" Dob.

Maybe next time.

Mike

#112 denis0007dl

denis0007dl

    Mariner 2

  • ***--
  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

OK, I can't take the pressure any more. I'll come clean with my comparo.

The same night I took out my 90mm Mak and the Q-Turret, of course I had four eyepieces along with me, too. They were the BGO 9, SF (Sheldon Faworski) Ortho 10.5, TV Plossl 11 ... and the BCO 10. According to Clear Sky Chart, the seeing was supposed to be "poor," but I think it was better than that. I'd give it about a 3.5 to 4 out of five. The Moon was one day past first quarter.

Except for the BGO 9, the eyepieces were nearly parfocal. I just needed to move two of them up a little in the focuser holders. So I could switch the Q-Turret quickly and easily among the BCO 10, SF 10.5 and TV Plossl 11. For the BGO 9, I had to use the focus knob on the 90mm Mak.

The magnifications and exit pupils were:

BGO 9 _____ 167x _____ 0.9mm
BCO 10 ____ 150x _____ 1.0mm
SF 10.5 ____ 143x _____ 1.1mm
TV 11 ______ 136x _____ 1.1mm

First I observed the Moon. All four eyepieces gave a comparable view of the lunar surface. I couldn't find any detail that was visible in any of the four eyepieces that wasn't visible in all four. But the TV Plossl 11 gave me the most pleasing presentation. There was something about it that was just more "contrasty."

I looked for some detail that was seen in the TeleVue that I couldn't see in any of the others, but there wasn't any. Somehow, though, the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? :grin: The 11mm is one of the newer TV Plossls, with the undercut. I was surprised, because my previous experience binoviewing the Moon in my 10" and 8" Dobs with a pair of new TV Plossl 25mm (at 12mm or shorter due to an OCA) was nothing special. In those cases, I preferred pairs of BGO's or even SA LERs. Maybe I should try binoviewing the Moon with my shorter focal length TV Plossls?

Next I turned to Jupiter. All four Galilean moons were lined up to the west of the planet. They were about equally spaced. A nice show. I could tell they were not stars, though they were not quite resolved as disks. The NEB and SEB were obvious and easy. The polar regions were also not difficult. When the seeing cleared a bit, I could begin to make out a few more bands. Switching among the eyepieces, I could discern no variation in the level of detail or perceived contrast. Especially when switching quickly among the three "parfocal" eyepieces, no differences were seen in the images. Even the magnifications were close enough that the size of the disk did not change appreciably.

I wouldn't want to make a final judgment based on this comparo. Smaller apertures often cannot show the subtle differences among eyepieces that larger ones can. And the seeing was only mediocre. A better comparo would be in a larger aperture during better seeing. But that night was cold and I knew the seeing wasn't the best. That's why I took out the 90mm, and not my 8" or 10" Dob.

Maybe next time.

Mike


Thanxs for info!!!

#113 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11360
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

...the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? :grin:


Yup...my experience as well with the Maria. Warmer toned eyepieces show Maria features a little better than cooler toned eyepieces. However, take that warmer toned eyepiece and turn it on finely detailed ejecta patterns in and around craters, and all of a sudden it does not show as well as the cooler toned eyepiece will IME. In the end, no one tonal quality is good for all details on the Moon since it is just too rich and varied of a target.

#114 ausastronomer

ausastronomer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1818
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Kiama NSW (Australia)

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

Keep it on topic please everyone. The thread is about Baader orthos.

Eyepiece turrets, vintage focusers and the like can be discussed in a separate thread.

Cheers,

#115 keroppilee

keroppilee

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2012

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:52 PM

I already have a widefield/finder piece in the es 82* 30mm, and a good mid power piece in the es 82* 11mm. Would you recommend the 6mm BCO as a good high power/planetary? Or is it super difficult to use a non widefield piece at that magnification?

#116 Peter Natscher

Peter Natscher

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Central Coast California

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:02 PM

I like observing the moon with neutral-toned eyepieces (Brandon's) that show the surface coloring as it really s and more realistically -- a cool gray color. There is no sunrise/sunset earth-like atmospheric coloring on the moon.

...the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? :grin:


Yup...my experience as well with the Maria. Warmer toned eyepieces show Maria features a little better than cooler toned eyepieces. However, take that warmer toned eyepiece and turn it on finely detailed ejecta patterns in and around craters, and all of a sudden it does not show as well as the cooler toned eyepiece will IME. In the end, no one tonal quality is good for all details on the Moon since it is just too rich and varied of a target.



#117 stevetaylor199

stevetaylor199

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2011
  • Loc: SE Wisconsin

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:57 PM

Chris, if you're using an undriven dob as I believe your Skyquest 8" may be, you might consider another ES 82 eyepiece. A 6mm ortho will have less than half the field of view as your 11mm ES 82. I found that the BCO 6 has a wider and more comfortable FOV than an older Baader 6mm ortho, but it's still pretty limited compared to the 82 deg FOV that allows for such relaxed tracking.

If you're comfortable with moving your scope more than twice as fast to track an object as you currently do with your ES 11, and you can also deal with less eye relief, then try out the BCO. I haven't tried mine in my 8" dob yet, but my expectation is to stick with my ES 6.7 for planet viewing with that scope.

#118 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:40 PM

Thanks y'all, I'm thinking about getting a set myself. Looking forward to more reviews of the 6, 10, and 18.

#119 Traveler

Traveler

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1243
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:14 AM

Before i buy some BCO's i have two questions:

Are these BCO's really different (optical wise) then the BGO's besides the differences in coating?

Is it possible to undo the BCO's from the eyeguards? How does that look? Maybe someone is able to show us a picture?

#120 Bill Weir

Bill Weir

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Metchosin (Victoria), Canada

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

Would you recommend the 6mm BCO as a good high power/planetary? Or is it super difficult to use a non widefield piece at that magnification?


I would. I just got back from checking out my new 6mm BCO using my f/8 6". I picked it up at the mailbox just a few minutes before. (so much for the equipment curse) The seeing wasn't the best but still Jupiter was fabulous with nice colours and the four moons showed as tiny discs and there was noticeable colour differences between them.

On the Moon I was very impressed. The ejecta around the crater Kepler was as good as I've ever seen it. I can also say the same about the Aristarchus-Herodotu-Vallis Schröter area. I sequenced though my 5mm BGO, 6mm BCO and 7mm UO HD on both objects and all three behaved similarly except with the different magnifications. I'm happy with my purchase.

If you're scope moves smoothly and you're competent with guiding it then a 6mm ortho will be fine. Just don't expect to not be always moving something.

Bill

#121 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11360
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:42 AM

Are these BCO's really different (optical wise) then the BGO's besides the differences in coating?


They are the same in that they are an Abbe Design.

They are different in that this Abbe design is modified relative to the BGOs since the lenses are much larger in diameter.

At the eye, for me the perceived difference is that the BCOs present a slightly brighter image than the BGOs. And of course the field stop is larger so the AFOV is larger in the BCO.

#122 keroppilee

keroppilee

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2012

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

thanks for the advice. so far the most i've had to move my scope is when i barlow my 11mm to 2x. I don't find it that bad but I do want to give a high mag not so widefield a try to see if i can handle it.

#123 ThomasM

ThomasM

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 297
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2009

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

Are these BCO's really different (optical wise) then the BGO's besides the differences in coating?


They are the same in that they are an Abbe Design.

They are different in that this Abbe design is modified relative to the BGOs since the lenses are much larger in diameter.

At the eye, for me the perceived difference is that the BCOs present a slightly brighter image than the BGOs.


I fully agree, the transmission of the 10 mm BCO is very high, 97 %.
Since several people now own these eypecies, has anybody compared them with the top notch, such as Zeiss abbe?

best regards

Thomas

#124 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2008
  • Loc: San Diego Ca.

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:15 PM

I got my 18 BCO a few days ago but nothing but clouds here till Monday. Not that I mind as we are getting much needed rain. Sadly I have no Zeiss to compare it to. However I can match mags with my 24 Brandon using various barlows and Powermates. I like the look of the BCO, it feels solid, the extra FOV is a plus and the eyecup is comfortable if a bit on the thin side. David

#125 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: South West England

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

I've compared the 18mm BCO with the same focal length BGO and I felt the BCO showed just a bit more contrast and brighness on M42 and M81 and 82. Both seemed equally sharp on star images although the BCO showed some distortion in the outer 10% or so of the field of view when used with my F/6.5 and F/7.5 refractors.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics