Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Morpheus 1st Lite

  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#1 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18732
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 31 July 2015 - 10:08 PM

Just tried the Morpheus.  Used my f/8 TSA-102 and the 14mm Morpheus and 14 XW.  Not a lot of targets and the Moon is washing out everything.  But visited M57, M29, M39, Albireo. 

 

In the TSA stars were nice and pinpoint to the edge.  XW of course showed some field curvature which that one is famous for.  Background was very nicely dark and uniform.  Right near the field stop brighter stars showed a little lateral color, and if you examined for astigmatism by racking the star out of focus you could see from the test that there was a very small amount, but so slight that it did not show when the star was in focus.  So an in focus star at the field stop showed just as small of a point as it did in the XW when I focused it at the edge.  Both eyepieces showed faint stars as well and M57 as well.  FOV was obviously larger than the XW but it did not give an impression as greatly larger.  Exit pupil was well behaved with no blackouts or kidney bean, and just a little more sensitive than the XW to lateral movements.  Overall very comfortable to use.  Eye relief felt slightly tighter.  With the rubber eyeguard up my eye brow was just touching it.  I preferred having it down.  Was easy to see the entire FOV and still be comfortably far from the eyepiece, so quite nice compared to 82 degree EPs which for me are a bit of an effort to see the entire AFOV.

 

As days progress will test further and in other scopes, particularly the faster Dob.  But off the top really liked it.  Have to say this year seems like lots of top quality EPs are coming out.  Overall liked it a little better than my XW because the off-axis was better than the 14 XW's and everything else was close or on-par.  Will try to catch Saturn tomorrow night with some of the shorter focal lengths.


Edited by BillP, 31 July 2015 - 10:08 PM.

  • Sarkikos, EuropaWill, John Anthony and 1 other like this

#2 Lew Chilton

Lew Chilton

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2197
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2005
  • Loc: San Fernando Valley, California

Posted 31 July 2015 - 10:22 PM

Bill,

 

Didn't Walter Pidgeon portray Dr. Morpheus in "Hidden Planet?" Just asking.



#3 pastortim

pastortim

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 492
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2015
  • Loc: N.E. Missouri

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:00 PM

Dr. Morbeus  and it was forbidden planet



#4 deefree49

deefree49

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 01 August 2015 - 12:25 AM

Yeah, Morbeus was Forbidden Planet and Morpheus was from The Matrix.

 

Monsters from the id!



#5 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 16991
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:56 AM

Just tried the Morpheus.  Used my f/8 TSA-102 and the 14mm Morpheus and 14 XW.  Not a lot of targets and the Moon is washing out everything.  But visited M57, M29, M39, Albireo. 

 

In the TSA stars were nice and pinpoint to the edge.  XW of course showed some field curvature which that one is famous for.  Background was very nicely dark and uniform.  Right near the field stop brighter stars showed a little lateral color, and if you examined for astigmatism by racking the star out of focus you could see from the test that there was a very small amount, but so slight that it did not show when the star was in focus.  So an in focus star at the field stop showed just as small of a point as it did in the XW when I focused it at the edge.  Both eyepieces showed faint stars as well and M57 as well.  FOV was obviously larger than the XW but it did not give an impression as greatly larger.  Exit pupil was well behaved with no blackouts or kidney bean, and just a little more sensitive than the XW to lateral movements.  Overall very comfortable to use.  Eye relief felt slightly tighter.  With the rubber eyeguard up my eye brow was just touching it.  I preferred having it down.  Was easy to see the entire FOV and still be comfortably far from the eyepiece, so quite nice compared to 82 degree EPs which for me are a bit of an effort to see the entire AFOV.

 

As days progress will test further and in other scopes, particularly the faster Dob.  But off the top really liked it.  Have to say this year seems like lots of top quality EPs are coming out.  Overall liked it a little better than my XW because the off-axis was better than the 14 XW's and everything else was close or on-par.  Will try to catch Saturn tomorrow night with some of the shorter focal lengths.

Nice review Bill.  Were you a "test pilot" for the Morpheus line?

 

Mike



#6 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24771
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:57 AM

and I've got a creative id.... :lol:

 

Would be interesting to know how they perform at the edge (does the moon "stretch"), how are they for panning (make you seasick?), and eventually, are they parfocal....

 

....and I wonder how they'll stack up against the new Vixens........


Edited by csrlice12, 01 August 2015 - 10:04 AM.


#7 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18732
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 01 August 2015 - 10:35 AM

 

Nice review Bill.  Were you a "test pilot" for the Morpheus line?

 

Nope.  Didn't hear a peep other than they were working on something.



#8 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 82965
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 01 August 2015 - 11:25 AM

Yeah, Morbeus was Forbidden Planet and Morpheus was from The Matrix.
 
Monsters from the id!

 
Walter Pidgeon played Dr. Morbius in Forbidden Planet.
 
http://www.imdb.com/..._=ttfc_fc_cl_t1
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=f2BYyeS-fIU
 
Dave Mitsky

#9 japaoletti

japaoletti

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Dearborn Michigan

Posted 01 August 2015 - 04:27 PM

Can't wait to hear more. Would be interested in a comparison between the Delites too. These two defiantly have my attention when I upgrade. 



#10 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 42771
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2015 - 04:42 PM

No reason to be defiant.  No one is trying to prevent you from paying attention.

Except, maybe, your CFO? :lol:

 

[sorry, couldn't resist...]


Edited by Starman1, 01 August 2015 - 04:43 PM.

  • paul m schofield likes this

#11 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18732
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 01 August 2015 - 07:21 PM

Can't wait to hear more. Would be interested in a comparison between the Delites too. These two defiantly have my attention when I upgrade. 

 

When I do the review, I will have some XW-Morpheus and DeLite-Morpheus compares.  Only issue is that not any exact overlap between the Morpheus and DeLites so most differences will probably be due to magnification and exit pupil differences.  The 6.5 Morpheus and 7 DeLite are the closest.



#12 Lew Chilton

Lew Chilton

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2197
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2005
  • Loc: San Fernando Valley, California

Posted 01 August 2015 - 08:25 PM

Bill, Dr. Morpheus, I presume?  :lol:



#13 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 42771
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2015 - 08:30 PM

Just a note to add to this thread in case people don't see the other.

Arrival in US in September.  $239 each.



#14 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18732
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 01 August 2015 - 11:34 PM

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).


  • Doug Culbertson, Sarkikos, george tatsis and 1 other like this

#15 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1830
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:24 AM

Here a review of the 12.5mm Morpheus, including a comparo to the 12mm Delos:

 

http://stargazerslou...m-76°-eyepiece/

 

 

Stephan



#16 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 02 August 2015 - 01:14 PM

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).

 

It would be good to see how these perform without a Paracorr. IME, the 10mm, 7mm, 5mm XW's don't need a Paracorr at all. I've let planets drift right to the field stops, and they still hold their true shape unlike some other eyepieces. Stars also stay sharp to the edges in these FL's without a Paracorr.

 

CS!

 

CS!



#17 japaoletti

japaoletti

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Dearborn Michigan

Posted 02 August 2015 - 01:51 PM

I'd also be interested to hear how these do in a TV Barlow. The 14mm and at 7mm particularly. 


Edited by japaoletti, 02 August 2015 - 01:52 PM.


#18 EuropaWill

EuropaWill

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Lower Hudson Valley NY

Posted 02 August 2015 - 09:25 PM

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).

Perhaps you received a differently spec'd sample to test than the other reviewer of the 12.5mm received? In your case the field stop was sharp in all the FL's. In the other reviewer's sample the 12.5mm Morpheus was plagued with a blurry field stop in addition to some field curvature vs the flat field and well defined field stop of the Delos 12mm.  :hmm:



#19 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30072
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:34 PM

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).

How is it at f/4.7 without the Paracorr, off-axis?  The Paracorr is a Barlow of sorts.  It corrects astigmatism at f/4.x in most eyepiece designs.  I'd like to get an idea of how well corrected the Morpheus is natively in fast scopes.  It is more like a Hyperion (blech) or a Nagler (Ommmm!)?  :grin:

 

- Jim



#20 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 42771
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:22 PM

 

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).

How is it at f/4.7 without the Paracorr, off-axis?  The Paracorr is a Barlow of sorts.  It corrects astigmatism at f/4.x in most eyepiece designs.  I'd like to get an idea of how well corrected the Morpheus is natively in fast scopes.  It is more like a Hyperion (blech) or a Nagler (Ommmm!)?   :grin:

 

- Jim

 

Now why in the world would that matter?  Someone who uses an f/4.7 newtonian without a coma corrector doesn't really care about off-axis stars.  'Cause if they did, they'd be using a coma corrector. Jus' keepin' it real.


  • Lew Zealand, bgi, Sarkikos and 5 others like this

#21 izar187

izar187

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3919
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006
  • Loc: 43N

Posted 03 August 2015 - 01:59 AM

Unless they care, but chose not to due to balance, budget and focuser alignment integrity.


  • jrbarnett and Far Star like this

#22 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 16991
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 03 August 2015 - 08:10 AM

 

 

Another test...

 

With my f/4.7 XT10 and adjustable top Paracorr-I set at the #2 position (second line from full down), stars were sharp right across the FOV.  Just the slight lateral color near the far off-axis, which is typical for all wide fields (I don't think I have found a wide field yet that doesn't have it).  So in the 14mm and 12.5mm, the lateral color on a star point started to show at about the 20% from field stop, and for the rest of the shorter focal lengths at about 10% from the field stop.  And of course only on brighter stars, and not obtrusive.   So all-in-all really beautiful FOV.  M13 was spectacular in all the focal lengths and all the stars in the glob stayed just as visible across the core whether it was dead center in the FOV or when M13 was positioned so it was bisected by the field stop.  Nice little star points everywhere :grin:   And btw, field stop sharp on all of them (14, 12.5, 9, 6.5, 4.5).

How is it at f/4.7 without the Paracorr, off-axis?  The Paracorr is a Barlow of sorts.  It corrects astigmatism at f/4.x in most eyepiece designs.  I'd like to get an idea of how well corrected the Morpheus is natively in fast scopes.  It is more like a Hyperion (blech) or a Nagler (Ommmm!)?   :grin:

 

- Jim

 

Now why in the world would that matter?  Someone who uses an f/4.7 newtonian without a coma corrector doesn't really care about off-axis stars.  'Cause if they did, they'd be using a coma corrector. Jus' keepin' it real.

 

I think it's a valid question as long as the blame is not emphasized on the eyepiece. 

Some "native" eyepieces play better than others (sans PC) in a fast Dob.

 

Mike



#23 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18732
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 03 August 2015 - 10:34 AM

 

 

Now why in the world would that matter?  Someone who uses an f/4.7 newtonian without a coma corrector doesn't really care about off-axis stars.  'Cause if they did, they'd be using a coma corrector. Jus' keepin' it real.

 

 

That is true.  But still a valid question as I did not use a Paracorr for many years with my XT10.  It did not bother me much as I am mostly an on-axis viewer.  Now though I use it all the time -- finally got converted.

 

However, I did give it a go last night.  Used bright Arcturus to test star point behavior without Paracorr, then observed M11 and M29 as two different types of open clusters to see how they fared.  M11 is many faint stars and condensed, M29 brighter stars and fills the FOV.  Also looked at the Mizar system as these are even brighter.

 

Without Paracorr I could detect no astigmatism or FC at anything more than the trivial level -- so nothing that had an impact on the in-focus star point.  And as I knew would happen, with the longer focal lengths coma overwhelmed things starting at about 50% out.  As a result, with the 14mm just too much coma...so hated Mizar and M29 in the 14mm.  M11 was ok though if I stayed on-axis with it.  Moving to 12.5mm again did not like Mizar or M29, but M11 was ok since mostly very faint stars in my 10" so acceptable off-axis.  With the 9mm things got better and the off-axis star points were certainly good enough not to need a Paracorr.  With very bright stars like Arcturus was just OK at the field stop area, not horrible, not excellent, so ok.  M11 and M29 fine though any place in the FOV.  And same with 6.5mm and 4.5mm, any object, even bright stars, just fine with minimal coma.  When comparing the 10 XW to the 9 Morpheus the XW seemed to hold a tighter star point without Paracorr than did the Morpheus...but then again the Morpheus has a wider AFOV so would expect it to not hold so well at the field stop.  But still I felt the 10 XW edged it in this respect in non-Paracorr observing.  So aside from the coma, the off-axis held well in these even at f/4.7 showing trivial or no other aberrations.  I then resumed observing with the Paracorr as everything cleaned up then.  Very engaging eyepieces.  Actually make my XWs seem like small AFOVs when I switch back and forth :(   Also surprised that peripherally can see entire AFOV of the Morpheus at their nice and comfortable ER distance.  And neatest of all...are you ready....  :hamsterdance:  ....while the outside rim of the housing does not almost vanish as it does with the 28 RKE, it is very thin.  So it has that cool character to it where the eyepiece is nearing getting out of the way of the FOV.  With the XW as example you have a large and broad region of black past the field stop, but with the Morpheus it is like the AFOV is rimmed with just a thin rim of black.  So very cool viewing with these between that characteristic, the comfortable long ER so no need to be near the housing, stable eye positioning, and engaging 76 degree AFOV.  I am really liking their AFOVs so far.  If you recall in my Tele Vue DeLite Eyepieces - First Light Review, I commented how the AFOV size difference between the DeLite and the XW did not come across as being dramatic.  Well a different story here as the difference is I feel dramatic between 70 and 76 degrees...so when using all three the XWs feel constrained and the DeLites then feel restrictive.  Interesting how the perception system reacts differently and of course non-linearly. 


Edited by BillP, 03 August 2015 - 10:42 AM.

  • Sarkikos, CeleNoptic and Thonolan like this

#24 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 42771
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:20 PM

Unless they care, but chose not to due to balance, budget and focuser alignment integrity.

Today's 8" and larger dobs all have focusers that can handle the weight.

Balance could be an issue, but one tamed with a simple counterweight.

Budget is hard to overcome in many cases--especially if the coma corrector costs an appreciable percentage of the entire scope.

But if the telescope owner cannot afford the price of a coma corrector (and some are not as expensive as the Paracorr), would they be looking at eyepieces costing $239 each?


  • bgi likes this

#25 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 03 August 2015 - 02:07 PM

 

 

 

Now why in the world would that matter?  Someone who uses an f/4.7 newtonian without a coma corrector doesn't really care about off-axis stars.  'Cause if they did, they'd be using a coma corrector. Jus' keepin' it real.

 

 

That is true.  But still a valid question as I did not use a Paracorr for many years with my XT10.  It did not bother me much as I am mostly an on-axis viewer.  Now though I use it all the time -- finally got converted.

 

However, I did give it a go last night.  Used bright Arcturus to test star point behavior without Paracorr, then observed M11 and M29 as two different types of open clusters to see how they fared.  M11 is many faint stars and condensed, M29 brighter stars and fills the FOV.  Also looked at the Mizar system as these are even brighter.

 

Without Paracorr I could detect no astigmatism or FC at anything more than the trivial level -- so nothing that had an impact on the in-focus star point.  And as I knew would happen, with the longer focal lengths coma overwhelmed things starting at about 50% out.  As a result, with the 14mm just too much coma...so hated Mizar and M29 in the 14mm.  M11 was ok though if I stayed on-axis with it.  Moving to 12.5mm again did not like Mizar or M29, but M11 was ok since mostly very faint stars in my 10" so acceptable off-axis.  With the 9mm things got better and the off-axis star points were certainly good enough not to need a Paracorr.  With very bright stars like Arcturus was just OK at the field stop area, not horrible, not excellent, so ok.  M11 and M29 fine though any place in the FOV.  And same with 6.5mm and 4.5mm, any object, even bright stars, just fine with minimal coma.  When comparing the 10 XW to the 9 Morpheus the XW seemed to hold a tighter star point without Paracorr than did the Morpheus...but then again the Morpheus has a wider AFOV so would expect it to not hold so well at the field stop.  But still I felt the 10 XW edged it in this respect in non-Paracorr observing.  So aside from the coma, the off-axis held well in these even at f/4.7 showing trivial or no other aberrations.  I then resumed observing with the Paracorr as everything cleaned up then.  Very engaging eyepieces.  Actually make my XWs seem like small AFOVs when I switch back and forth :(   Also surprised that peripherally can see entire AFOV of the Morpheus at their nice and comfortable ER distance.  And neatest of all...are you ready....  :hamsterdance:  ....while the outside rim of the housing does not almost vanish as it does with the 28 RKE, it is very thin.  So it has that cool character to it where the eyepiece is nearing getting out of the way of the FOV.  With the XW as example you have a large and broad region of black past the field stop, but with the Morpheus it is like the AFOV is rimmed with just a thin rim of black.  So very cool viewing with these between that characteristic, the comfortable long ER so no need to be near the housing, stable eye positioning, and engaging 76 degree AFOV.  I am really liking their AFOVs so far.  If you recall in my Tele Vue DeLite Eyepieces - First Light Review, I commented how the AFOV size difference between the DeLite and the XW did not come across as being dramatic.  Well a different story here as the difference is I feel dramatic between 70 and 76 degrees...so when using all three the XWs feel constrained and the DeLites then feel restrictive.  Interesting how the perception system reacts differently and of course non-linearly. 

 

 

This is something I thought would happen. The XW's are sharp to the  edges in my 10" F/4.7 w/o a CC. (10mm XW, 7mm XW and 5mm XW). This only occurs because the negative FC in those three EP's gets cancelled out by the positive FC in the mirror. I am WELL AWARE that these are not "magical coma-correcting eyepieces". ;)

 

So glad you did this Bill, because I do not use a CC / Paracorr. I'll take these two XW's any day of the week over these new offerings even if 70 degrees seems smaller, at least the entire FOV is razor sharp. THIS is exactly WHY it is so important for people who do not use a Paracorr / Coma corrector to know about.

 

Thanks for taking the time to do that and make a report. :waytogo:

 

I've viewed through 60 degree eyepieces....62 degrees isn't much more..so I would say there would be a difference to be seen from the Delite to the XW.....for some of us.

 

In this instance....YMMV as well.

 

I'd prob check out the 4.5mm is someone happens to bring one around to the observing site a bunch of us go to. Won't be running out quickly to buy any though.

 

CS!


Edited by Scanning4Comets, 03 August 2015 - 03:18 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics