Quote:

---

For planets and double stars, finer detail and less scatter are much more comfortable to my eyes than longer eye relief and a wider field. For deep sky objects, I want wider field and higher light transmission. I know that many planet, double star, and deep sky enthusiasts have come to the same conclusions.

My feet merely have to get me from point A to point B and back in relative comfort. My eyes have to perform much more delicate work along the way. YMMV. To each their own.


Mike

---

I get the "right tool for the right job" argument. Indeed, that led me to trying out the 5 XO for myself. But in practice, I found that the eye strain and fatigue I got from observing with the 5 XO actually hindered me from the "delicate work" of viewing fine planetary detail. For me, a big part of capturing fine planetary detail is to be patient and spend plenty of time at the eyepiece to wait for those special moments of extra clarity when the air is really still. Here in Florida, the seeing is generally very good, but even on the best nights there are variations in seeing--when observing at high power, there will be moments when a planetary view will get extra sharp before softening a bit again. (My experience observing the central star in M57 is much the same--when the air is still, it blinks into view; when the seeing degrades ever so slightly it disappears again.) I don't know when those wonderful moments of extra clarity and exquisite detail are going to come, but if my eyes are already worn out from using an uncomfortable eyepiece, I'm not likely going to catch them. I don't regret trying out the 5 XO, but I sure don't miss it now.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

But in practice, I found that the eye strain and fatigue I got from observing with the 5 XO actually hindered me from the "delicate work" of viewing fine planetary detail. For me, a big part of capturing fine planetary detail is to be patient and spend plenty of time at the eyepiece to wait for those special moments of extra clarity when the air is really still.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I bought the 5XO as a niche eyepiece--to squeeze out a little more planetary detail, or splitting some difficult doubles. I will use the 6 Delos or 4 Radian for extended viewing, but will use the 5XO for those special situations. Some may believe this is a frivolous expenditure or use for an eyepiece. I don't. I am very pleased to own one of the one or two best eyepieces in this range ever made. On nights of excellent seeing, I will know that I squeezed out as much detail as is possible.

---

I don't think it's frivolous at all. I bought the 5 XO for the very same reasons as well, and sure wish it would've worked out for me. From reading this thread, it sounds like some have no problems observing with the XO but others, including myself, find it a bit uncomfortable. In fact, the fellow who sold me his XO had acknowledged that the eye relief was a bit tight. I figured I had nothing to lose in trying it out for myself since it would easy to resell due to its great reputation. Despite my own experience, I would still urge anyone curious about the XO to give observing with it a shot.

I think Mike might be on to something in suggesting that one's preference for or against short eye relief eyepieces might have to do with the physical configuration of their eyes, eye sockets and nasal bridge, etc. Another factor might be something about the design of the XO itself; I'm usually OK with short ER Orthos.

I'd still be willing to try out a 6mm ZAO II (I suspect it might it easier on my eyes), but these days those seem to be harder to find than hens's teeth!

Post Extras: