108 replies to this topic

[RichA]

Even garish cheap eyepieces with 1" tall lettering on them aren't quite so ugly.  Hopefully, the optics make-up for that.

[Meadeball]

Link? Image?

[Meadeball]

Ah. See what you mean. Kinda looks like it got caught in a waffle iron with a pair of wide-whale corduroy pants from the '70s. Or like something you'd find under the hood of your car, especially with that gaudy lettering. Come to think of it I think they got their labeling idea from the automotive world too.

 

Functionally, that eyepiece is gonna require a lot of cleaning from eyelash oil ...

Edited by Meadeball, 22 August 2015 - 12:17 AM.

[GaryCurran]

Read the review on them here in CN.  They look, and from the reviews, like they are going to be even better than the Hyperions.  They were made to be lightweight, but waterproof, and the waffle pattern was designed to help you grip them in colder weather, so you don't  drop them.

 

Ugly is only skin deep, let's see how they perform, first, okay?  

[Jim78154]

Uhhh...RichA, You look AT the astronomical bodies and THROUGH the eyepieces.

[RichA]

Read the review on them here in CN.  They look, and from the reviews, like they are going to be even better than the Hyperions.  They were made to be lightweight, but waterproof, and the waffle pattern was designed to help you grip them in colder weather, so you don't  drop them.

 

Ugly is only skin deep, let's see how they perform, first, okay?  

 

Why?  Take a look at the average apo today.  Is it a plain-jane painted aluminum tube with a crude-looking cast-body focuser?  No, they are fully-machined.  Beautifully-anodized.  No reason eyepieces can't follow-suit.

[Saturninus]

I think Baader must have seen the Celestron Duo eyepiece and challenged themselves with the nearly impossible task of making an even uglier eyepiece. They might have succeeded.

But if it performs as well as they claim it will, then all will be forgiven.

[Meadeball]

Oh, I know, guys. Just having a little fun. I did read the recent review here. Looks like a nice performer.

 

I did find a nice source of replacement barrels for them though. But you might need an adapter.

Edited by Meadeball, 22 August 2015 - 02:03 AM.

[RichA]

I think the Germans resurrected Albert Speer to design them.

[Tank]

i really like the top lens but thats were it stops the rest looks like they just kinda slaped it together talking about the housing

[MortonH]

Haven't you guys read BillP's review yet?  The optics are pretty good.

[ryderc1]

It may not be the ugliest eyepiece of all time but certainly ranks in the top 10.

[NHRob]

They should named them Dalek!

[precaud]

Hmmm... that should make them more affordable when they hit the used market  

[Meadeball]

Haven't you guys read BillP's review yet?  The optics are pretty good.

 

Well, my toilet works well too ...

[bremms]

Lets hope they are better than Hyperions. They are mediocre

Read the review on them here in CN.  They look, and from the reviews, like they are going to be even better than the Hyperions.  They were made to be lightweight, but waterproof, and the waffle pattern was designed to help you grip them in colder weather, so you don't  drop them.

 

Ugly is only skin deep, let's see how they perform, first, okay?  

[Mitrovarr]

Yeah, I can kind of see it. However, most of the features that make it look slapdash also make utilitarian sense. Even the gaudy lettering does - I bet it's more readable in the dark than small, classy lettering would be. So I find it more forgivable than all of the extra bulk on the Meade UWAs and Luminos eyepieces, for instance.

[george tatsis]

Bill's review is very illuminating and it's a must read for anyone interested in these new eyepieces. They are not as elegant as the

 

TVs or the ESs, but I wouldn't call them ugly. Speaking of ugly, as much as I like my XWs, I don't think they would ever win a

 

beauty pageant. I like looking through them, not at them. So, if this new line delivers as well as Bill has reported, then who cares

 

about the rest !

 

George

[csrlice12]

I donno, I always thought the XW's kinda resembled Dolly Parton in her good days.....

[Scanning4Comets]

Haven't you guys read BillP's review yet?  The optics are pretty good.

 

While ONE review can be engaging.....it takes a lot more reviews from many different sets of eyes to really evaluate.

 

CS!

Edited by Scanning4Comets, 22 August 2015 - 05:20 PM.

[Full Sun]

I would trust BillP's reviews as accurate, well reasoned, non political and objective.

I would wage several Ben Franklins on them. Enough said.

Edited by Full Sun, 22 August 2015 - 05:38 PM.

[RichA]

If most eyepieces perform about the same, have the same viewing characteristics, and cost about the same, then people will opt for the ones that look less revolting. 

[2244champ]

I enjoyed reading BillP's review & I appreciated his or anyone who takes the time to review astro gear. Anyone that makes a review also opens himself to a lot of scrutiny as some people will dissect  & nitpick about every single word, comma,& nuance. I also like to hear from many reviews from the CN community. I certainly don't take any single review as gospel. As far as wagering Ben Franklins, wager all you want, its your money. Personally, the only one I bet on is myself. In the end, the only way I'll know for sure is to try one for myself. Clear skies, Doug

[Full Sun]

 ...well of course but you have to buy one ot two to try them and compare to alternatives.

Something has to ring true to motivate you to buy in the first place.

Might as well get your basic understanding of a new eyepiece line by the "man who wrote the book" rather than two or three anonymous internet posters.

Jerry

Edited by Full Sun, 22 August 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[MortonH]

If most eyepieces perform about the same, have the same viewing characteristics, and cost about the same, then people will opt for the ones that look less revolting. 

 

From BillP"s review it seems that the XW and Delos are the closest in terms of specs and performance (and they have also been criticised for their appearance).  However the prices are substantially different.

 

Delos 14mm = $340.

 

XW 14mm = $299.99

 

Morpheus 14mm = $239.99

 

 

Personally, I'd happily own an eyepiece that looks like a Dalek if its performance is close to a Pentax XW but costs less.