Jump to content


Photo

Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#126 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

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

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

I tried out my 18 BCO in my IM-715 by itself and with my 1.5X Siebert and 2X TV barlows. I was viewing the Moon with fair seeing. Image quality is very good but there was some vignetting with the barlows. There was more with the 2X but it was only 2-3 degrees. David

#127 Gilbert D

Gilbert D

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2012

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

How does BCO 18mm compare to Sterling Plossl 17mm? I'm thinking about getting either one.
And how about BCO 10mm vs Sterling Plossl 12.5mm?

#128 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

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

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:06 PM

How does BCO 18mm compare to Sterling Plossl 17mm? I'm thinking about getting either one.
And how about BCO 10mm vs Sterling Plossl 12.5mm?


That sounds fun...the 17 vs the 18. Will do that next clear evening :) 10mm and 12.5mm are too far apart for meaningful comparison since the exit pupil of the 12.5mm will be approx 56% brighter! The 17 vs 18 is a little more level with the 18mm's exit pupil being about 12% brighter.

#129 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

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

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:00 PM

I used the 18 BCO with a 1.5X Siebert barlow in my IM-715 on the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn with very good conditions. Performance was impressive. I did back to back the Moon with a 13 Ethos and 10 XW and didn't take a hit in image quality with the BCO. I used the BCO back to back barlowed to the same power on the Moon in the same scope on another night with fair conditions and the Brandon had an advantage contrast wise. David

#130 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16227
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:29 PM

When viewing the Moon through my 90mm Mak, a TV Plossl 11m gave me better contrast than the BCO 10, FO 10.5 or BGO 9mm, especially on the maria. Not appreciably finer detail, but more contrast.

Mike

#131 dyslexic nam

dyslexic nam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2008
  • Loc: PEI, Canada

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:14 AM

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!


+

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.


= irony

#132 dscarpa

dscarpa

    Gemini

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

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

There were high thin clouds on both nights and the BCO's tone was very similar to my XWs, Delos and such with the Moon being white. My T6s would show gray with clear and yellow with thin clouds. The Badders also gave sharp high contrast performance on Jupiter and Saturn. BCOs give a quality image for not much money. Orthos for sure! David

#133 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:21 AM

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!


+

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.


= irony

:funny:

#134 Gilbert D

Gilbert D

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2012

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:50 AM

How does BCO 18mm compare to Sterling Plossl 17mm? I'm thinking about getting either one.
And how about BCO 10mm vs Sterling Plossl 12.5mm?


That sounds fun...the 17 vs the 18. Will do that next clear evening :) 10mm and 12.5mm are too far apart for meaningful comparison since the exit pupil of the 12.5mm will be approx 56% brighter! The 17 vs 18 is a little more level with the 18mm's exit pupil being about 12% brighter.

Hi Bill,
Have you got a chance to compare the 17mm Sterling Plossl and the 18mm BCO? Looking forward to your assessment.

#135 Alvin Huey

Alvin Huey

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2005
  • Loc: NorCal

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

I have the 6 and 10mm BCO and will try and do some real world comparisons with my 6 and 10mm Delos and 6 and 10mm ZAO-II and report back here.

Mind, that I report what I see through the eyepiece, not theory. Those who have seen my reports/posts in the past...I do see differences between the ZAO-II, Delos and Ethos (best to worst in that order). My views are validated and confirmed by others on the field with me...and they are also very experienced observers.

I use my 22" for the comparisons as I know from past experience and what others have reported, the larger the telescope, the wider the difference is...think of a slope on a 2D graph, the x-axis is the aperture and y-axis is the "view"...the difference between two linear lines gets wider as we go right on the x-axis. I also have a 30" reflector in my garage, which I may end up using for the comparison. I just need help setting that thing up. ;)

With my friend's 48" reflector, the difference becomes pretty obvious.

I did get a quick first light to make sure it works, etc...using my two little scopes: 4" f/11 AstroTelescopes and 6" f/7.7 Tak TOA150. One thing I noticed is that it is parfocal with my 24mm Panoptic finder eyepiece and Delos eyepieces. Very nice. The BGO's require a bit of in-focus (about 10mm - I didn't measure)

#136 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16227
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

That sounds great, Alvin. I was wondering when you would get around to field testing these BCO's!

I notice that on your website, in terms of "going deep" you rate the BGO's between the Zeiss and Ethos, but a bit closer to the Zeiss. So does this mean that for transmission, the BGO's are about equal to the Delos, or even between the Zeiss and Delos?

I'm curious where the BCO's will fall on this continuum.

Mike

#137 dcoyle

dcoyle

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Turbulent but dark skies, N.M.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:46 PM

Very much look forward to your observations, Alvin.

Dan

#138 Alvin Huey

Alvin Huey

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2005
  • Loc: NorCal

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:56 PM


I notice that on your website, in terms of "going deep" you rate the BGO's between the Zeiss and Ethos, but a bit closer to the Zeiss. So does this mean that for transmission, the BGO's are about equal to the Delos, or even between the Zeiss and Delos?

Mike


Mike,

I don't know as I don't own a 6mm BGO, so I can not do a direct comparison. The Delos I own are the 6, 8, 10 and 14mm lengths. There are no BGO's in the same focal lengths and I really prefer to compare exact focal lengths as differing magnifications can and will make the difference.

My friend who owns a 6mm BGO, but I haven't seen him in two years.

I've always wondered too...

#139 Alvin Huey

Alvin Huey

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2005
  • Loc: NorCal

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

I'm also wondering how "good" the BCO barlow is...I don't expect to be close to my TMB 1.8x ED barlow, but who knows. Anyone played with one? Any in or out of focus required versus native eyepiece?

#140 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22606
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:29 PM

I'm also wondering how "good" the BCO barlow is...I don't expect to be close to my TMB 1.8x ED barlow, but who knows. Anyone played with one? Any in or out of focus required versus native eyepiece?

Just tried it at infinity focus and it seemed to require 10-13mm additional inward focuser movement to achieve focus, like a typical barlow.
BCO refers to the ortho eyepieces in the Q Series
BCP refers to the plossl eyepiece in the Q Series
Q-Barlow refers to the 2.25X barlow in the Q Series.

#141 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

Alvin,

I've just been playing with the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow and some BCO's and BGO's. With the 18mm BCO the barlow requires around 10mm of inwards focuser movement to regain sharp focus. With the 18mm BGO this is reduced to just ~2mm.

I repeated this with the 6mm BCO and BGO's and got 6mm of inwards required for the 6mm BCO and virtually no change of focus position for the 6mm BGO.

The scope was a Vixen ED102SS F/6.5 refractor and the subject was Sirius.

#142 Alvin Huey

Alvin Huey

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2005
  • Loc: NorCal

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:09 PM

Thanks Don and John!

#143 KaStern

KaStern

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2006
  • Loc: InTheDark

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:27 PM

Hi Folks,

last Weekend I could do a short indoor check of the Baader Classic Ortho.
I plugged it in the focusser of a scope, aimed the scope towards a horizontal bar
and shifted it up and down.
The bar appeared to be bended at the outer part of the field of view.
I checked the same bar with a Kasai Ortho (it looks like the volcano
top but does not state multicoatings).
The bar appeared significantly less bended at the edge of field,
wich was admittedly narrower.
To me the Baader classic Ortho is not an orthoscopic eyepiece.

The field stop of the exepiece looked not cut out sharp, but somewhat rough and fuzzy.
I was not at all impressed by this new eyepiece line.

Cheers, Karsten

#144 Lance1234

Lance1234

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:30 PM

Since several people now own these eypecies, has anybody compared them with the top notch, such as Zeiss abbe?

best regards

Thomas


Thomas,
While not ZAOs, I was able to compare one sample of the 10mm & 16mm BCO against my 10mm & 16mm Carl Zeiss Jena (CZJ). The conditions were definitely not the best, lots of light pollution (orange-red zone) and unstable air. Popped into my C9.25, the BCOs were very sharp, the transmission was excellent, and they were a pleasure to use. On Jupiter, with the seeing conditions as they were, they were very close with maybe just a hint of additional detail visible through the CZJ at both magnifications. Where I did notice a more pronounced difference was on M3 & M13 which were clearly better resolved in the CZJs at both magnifications.

So how would I rate them? Best value: BCO, just a great eyepiece for the money. Best optics: CZJ (but you pay for it both in $$$ and/or waiting for one to pop up on the used market).

#145 tomharri

tomharri

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:56 PM

Had a set ZAO 2's, found so many eyepieces just as good, like Pentax XW's, out went the Zeisses.

The latest Baaders, Kasai, in fact any ordinary available ortho/plossl is less sharp/contrasty than the Pentax or the new Delos.

#146 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10255
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:35 PM

When viewing the Moon through my 90mm Mak, a TV Plossl 11m gave me better contrast than the BCO 10, FO 10.5 or BGO 9mm, especially on the maria. Not appreciably finer detail, but more contrast.

Mike


Hi Mike,
The 1 extra mm in the TV could affect perceived contrasts though - particularly in less than good seeing.

One person mentions rough or fuzzy fieldstop but mines sharp. Got my 18 and 10mm today (thanks Mr. P.) . Haven't used em but I'm feeling they'll be at least ok. I don't have demanding fast scopes though. My Abbes by UO are excellent as a matter of fact.

Pete

#147 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

Had a set ZAO 2's, found so many eyepieces just as good, like Pentax XW's, out went the Zeisses.

The latest Baaders, Kasai, in fact any ordinary available ortho/plossl is less sharp/contrasty than the Pentax or the new Delos.


For me, the BGO 5mm and BCO 6mm seem to equal my XW 5mm on fine lunar detail and picking Sirius B out from the glow of Sirus A. The XW's 70 degree field, massive eye lens and 20mm of eye relief are lovely to have of course and I'd not be without them :)

#148 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:11 PM

The field stop of the exepiece looked not cut out sharp, but somewhat rough and fuzzy

While I agree with you about distorsion and a somewhat "soft" 10-15% edge (and, theoretically, about the definition of "orthoscopy"), I found a quite sharp FS (at least as sharp as the one in TV Plossl and BGO) in my samples (10 and 18 mm). Maybe is the "poor chinese QC" thing :scratchhead: ...

#149 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16227
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:38 PM

Pete,

The 1 extra mm in the TV could affect perceived contrasts though - particularly in less than good seeing.


I think a better guide to perceived contrast is the difference in exit pupil, and not so much a millimeter or two in focal length of the eyepiece, depending on the telescope, of course.

In my 90mm f/13.3 Mak, the TV Plossl 11 gave a 0.83mm exit pupil, the FO 10.5 gave a 0.79mm exit pupil, the BCO 10 gave a 0.75mm exit pupil, and the BGO 9 gave a 0.68mm exit pupil.

Undoubtedly this is higher accuracy than is warranted by the probable error and fudging involved in the advertised focal lengths of these eyepieces. So I think it'd be fairer to round to the nearest tenth and say that the TV Plossl 11, FO 10.5 and BCO 10 all yield 0.8mm exit pupil, while the BGO 9 gives 0.7mm exit pupil.

Looked at this way, my comparo - especially among these first three eyepieces - should have more weight when I say that the TV Plossl gave me better perceived contrast for lunar.

I know a lot of observers will criticize comparos among eyepieces which do not have the exact same focal length. How many times have we read this? But to me it does make more sense to consider the exit pupil produced by the combination of eyepieces and telescope, and not so much a strict protocol based on "exact" focal lengths of eyepieces.

Mike

#150 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:43 PM

I am SO tempted to pick up a pair of 18mm BCOs... and yet something tells me there is a very good reason why I had to spend $1 extra on my 18.5mm KK Circle T Volcano Tops... :confused: ;) :p :cool: :question:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics