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. Ugliest eyepieces I think I've ever seen

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
108 replies to this topic

#1 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,433
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010

Posted 21 August 2015 - 11:54 PM

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



#2 Meadeball

Meadeball

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,572
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 12:09 AM

Link? Image? :gotpopcorn:



#3 Meadeball

Meadeball

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,572
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 12:11 AM

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.


#4 GaryCurran

GaryCurran

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,299
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2015

Posted 22 August 2015 - 12:30 AM

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?  :p



#5 Jim78154

Jim78154

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:01 AM

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



#6 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,433
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:44 AM

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?   :p

 

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.



#7 Saturninus

Saturninus

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2013

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:56 AM

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.

#8 Meadeball

Meadeball

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,572
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:00 AM

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. :rofl:


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


#9 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,433
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010

Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:37 AM

I think the Germans resurrected Albert Speer to design them.



#10 Tank

Tank

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,248
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:36 AM

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



#11 MortonH

MortonH

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,033
  • Joined: 12 May 2007

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:43 AM

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



#12 ryderc1

ryderc1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 610
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2006

Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:07 AM

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



#13 NHRob

NHRob

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,107
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004

Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:14 AM

They should named them Dalek!



#14 precaud

precaud

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,010
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:15 AM

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



#15 Meadeball

Meadeball

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,572
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:21 PM

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

 

Well, my toilet works well too ... :rofl:



#16 bremms

bremms

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,309
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:53 PM

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?   :p



#17 Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,015
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2004

Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:16 PM

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.



#18 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,458
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008

Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:29 PM

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



#19 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 28,005
  • Joined: 22 May 2012

Posted 22 August 2015 - 03:41 PM

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



#20 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17,938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 22 August 2015 - 04:54 PM

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.


#21 Full Sun

Full Sun

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2006

Posted 22 August 2015 - 05:21 PM

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.


#22 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,433
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:08 PM

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. 



#23 2244champ

2244champ

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2011

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:29 PM

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



#24 Full Sun

Full Sun

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2006

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:47 PM

 ...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.


#25 MortonH

MortonH

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,033
  • Joined: 12 May 2007

Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:13 PM

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. 




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