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

APM/Lunt 100 vs Ethos, ES, Delos, Doc, Morph: Getting Crowded?

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 HowardSkies

HowardSkies

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2017

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:46 PM

Lots of wide field EPs out there.

 

Any experience with this new addition:

 

http://www.apm-teles...0-eyepiece.html

 

Where does this one fit in the hierarchy?

 

Any good for binoviewing?


Edited by HowardSkies, 14 November 2017 - 08:51 PM.

  • APO1 likes this

#2 Ernest_SPB

Ernest_SPB

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010
  • Loc: St.-Petersburg, Russia

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

Price is the best clue...


  • GeneT likes this

#3 APO1

APO1

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Tennessee

Posted 15 November 2017 - 12:08 PM

I'll have an APM 20mm 100 HDC by Friday, as soon as I get some good seeing I'll plug it in, though I've never used an EP with field larger than a Nagler.


  • Procyon likes this

#4 Piero DP

Piero DP

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 348
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Cambridge, UK

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:21 PM

I have the 20mm HDC and is a great eyepiece. It is not going anywhere from my case (= it's a keeper). If the 9mm has the same quality as the 20mm, it's another bargain. The HDCs are also considerably lighter than the other equivalent 100s. 


  • Procyon likes this

#5 HowardSkies

HowardSkies

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2017

Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:24 PM

The weight is a big issue, especially with binoviewing and a smaller scope.  Pull the EPs out and the scope wants to do a nose dive!



#6 starcam

starcam

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007
  • Loc: MD

Posted 15 November 2017 - 04:18 PM

It gives an excellent wide, contrasty view, but the er trips me up. I'm to spoiled with delos,es92,xw,morph.

As for bino-viewing, heavy and awkward possibly. I have the william optic version, at least I can rest my forehead

on the edge eye part to keep my eye a close constant. Never would of attempt to bino view thru it.


Edited by starcam, 15 November 2017 - 04:27 PM.

  • Procyon likes this

#7 Oscar56

Oscar56

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Summerland, BC

Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

It gives an excellent wide, contrasty view, but the er trips me up. I'm to spoiled with delos,es92,xw,morph.

As for bino-viewing, heavy and awkward possibly. I have the william optic version, at least I can rest my forehead

on the edge eye part to keep my eye a close constant. Never would of attempt to bino view thru it.

I am coming to appreciate the solid twist up eye cups of the XW and Baader zoom. From the marketing photos the WO-100 look similar in design to the Baader zoom eyecup. 



#8 lulz

lulz

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2016
  • Loc: Østfold, Norway

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:12 PM

Bought the 9mm 100* over the ES 9mm 100*. Hope I made a good choice tongue2.gif


  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#9 HowardSkies

HowardSkies

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2017

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:59 PM

Please post once you have had a look at the sky ...
  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#10 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8884
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 November 2017 - 07:42 AM

Bought the 9mm 100* over the ES 9mm 100*. Hope I made a good choice tongue2.gif

You did.  I did a correct comparison of these two eyepieces and they were close, but the 9mm XWA was a little better than the ES100 and more comfortable to use.  The 9mm XWA presented more like the Ethos than the 9mm ES100.


  • Procyon, cpper and rogeriomagellan like this

#11 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5434
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:29 AM

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!



#12 HowardSkies

HowardSkies

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2017

Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:52 AM

It is excellent for the customer, but gets harder to 'pick' the right EP for ones own set-up.  Need reviews and postings from CN members and their experience at the EP in the field to help choose.


  • Jakester01 likes this

#13 payner

payner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Bluegrass Region, Kentucky

Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:34 AM

When you are the company making the investment in R & D, price and profit have to account for that upfront investment.  ES, and those that followed, had those costs and the required optical designer expertise taken care of by Tele Vue's investment and could undercut them.  Take for example the ES 92 series.  These are currently a unique design of HW eyepieces, and ES is charging its customers for that R & D, i.e., no free ride.

 

Randy


  • R_Huntzberry likes this

#14 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5434
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 18 November 2017 - 01:52 PM

When you are the company making the investment in R & D, price and profit have to account for that upfront investment.  ES, and those that followed, had those costs and the required optical designer expertise taken care of by Tele Vue's investment and could undercut them.  Take for example the ES 92 series.  These are currently a unique design of HW eyepieces, and ES is charging its customers for that R & D, i.e., no free ride.

 

Randy

Most firms attempt to maximize Total Revenue = Price x Quantity, and they know quantity will increase as they decrease price, or vice versa.  When ES entered the market they chose to undercut TV with what seemed like never ending continous sales.

 

ES now has a niche market in 92 AFOV, and TV has a niche market in long eye relief and Dioptrix correction.



#15 Traveler

Traveler

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2519
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 18 November 2017 - 01:59 PM

I don't mind if it is crowdy or not in the (ultra) wide ep department. I stick with my XW's  cool.gif



#16 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 38569
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2017 - 08:17 PM

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.


  • payner, russell23, Steve Harris and 1 other like this

#17 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8884
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 22 November 2017 - 08:35 PM

 

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.

 

The main thing TV still has going for it with the Ethos is that they are better than the clones.  If I wanted to get a 100 deg eyepiece again it would be an Ethos. 



#18 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5434
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:35 PM

 

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.

 

If there was little profit in 10+ AFOV, TV would still be the sole manufacturer in this niche market, because no other manufactures would want to enter for so little profit.  Many manufacturers entering shows their is great profit potential and little risk of failure.  TV had the opportunity to keep this niche market theirs by either getting patent protection (preventing others from entering without risk of getting sued) or setting prices and profits lower so others would not want to enter this niche market.  This is a classic business case, and true for all niche markets, and whether the supplier can keep or loses the niche market. 

 

P.S.  TV appears to be keeping the Delos and Dioptrix niche markets to themselves for the above reasons also.



#19 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8884
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:57 PM

 

 

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.

 

If there was little profit in 10+ AFOV, TV would still be the sole manufacturer in this niche market, because no other manufactures would want to enter for so little profit.  Many manufacturers entering shows their is great profit potential and little risk of failure.  TV had the opportunity to keep this niche market theirs by either getting patent protection (preventing others from entering without risk of getting sued) or setting prices and profits lower so others would not want to enter this niche market.  This is a classic business case, and true for all niche markets, and whether the supplier can keep or loses the niche market. 

 

P.S.  TV appears to be keeping the Delos and Dioptrix niche markets to themselves for the above reasons also.

 

From what I have read over the years on this forum, patent protection would not work.   TV patented the early Type 1 Nagler and that did not stop Meade from cloning them - perhaps made it easier to clone because Meade could work directly off the patent to make small changes.

 

Also as a smaller business it could be difficult to handle the expense for TV to challenge Explore in court with no guarantee of a settlement in their favor. 

 

As far as prices, Explore came in at a price so low that TV would have lost money on each Ethos to sell at those prices.

 

As for the Delos,  TV is not keeping anything to themselves there.  The Delos came in after the Pentax XW and Nikon NAV.  This is a case of TV throwing their hat in the ring with the competition.


  • turtle86 likes this

#20 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2569
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:03 PM

I admit I get curious about a new eyepiece when I read a lot of excited user

reports. I bought a Morpheus and an ES 92 eyepiece last year because of this.

I thank the people that submitted their reports because I would have assumed

they were not anything special otherwise. Both eyepieces are now among my

favorites, and I have a lot of very good eyepieces. 

 

As far as profit is concerned, this is a niche market. I'd be really surprised if anyone

was making big profits, even with an exclusive product. We seem to be in a consumer's

golden age of low cost and high variety in our hobby that has never existed before.

I can't help but think the "bubble" is going to burst.  



#21 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 10983
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005
  • Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:31 PM

 

I can't help but think the "bubble" is going to burst.

Not if it's cast into the glass.

smirk.gif

 

Assuming any EP could easily be deconstructed, examined, and reverse-engineered (especially by an offshore manuf.), can't help but wonder if the main areas of performance differences might lie not in geometries, but in coatings & polish?

 

We see surface polish a major player in Newtonian mirrors, with some legendary figures turning out legendary figures. That's just a single surface (granted, a sizeable one wink.gif). What happens when there's 9-10 optical elements, each having TWO surfaces? There be a whole LOT of areas to invest prudently & reap noticeable performance differences!

 

Now how the Lunt folks have managed to whack noteworthy poundage off their designs, while pleasing the market with arguably (slightly?) better optics would seem to be a whole lotta prudence goin' on!

waytogo.gif



#22 YKSE

YKSE

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2014

Posted 23 November 2017 - 08:41 AM

From what I have read over the years on this forum, patent protection would not work.   TV patented the early Type 1 Nagler and that did not stop Meade from cloning them - perhaps made it easier to clone because Meade could work directly off the patent to make small changes.

 

Also as a smaller business it could be difficult to handle the expense for TV to challenge Explore in court with no guarantee of a settlement in their favor. 

 

Yes, this is the story have been repeated many times over and over, sound quite convincing.

 

But, anyone has posted questions about this story?

 

1.Patent protection: patent is at present the only valid legal way to protect an innovation, it is certainly not perfect, just like any other legal system we have, but patent is the only way here. No patent, no legal protection. period.

 

2. How difficult and/or costly to reverse-engineer an eyepiece: Anyone seeing the x-ray picture of 100° ES 14 and 13 Ethos knows it not difficult at all, and buying an eyepiece to find out exact glass types used is not much either for a company aiming making larger quantity of money. therefore

3.Not using patent protection doesn't pose any slightest obstable against cloning, actually making cloning fairly straight forward and much easier.

 

4.Having patent is an additional cost, but others who want to clone need to re-design to get around the patent, like Meade did (by splitting a doublet, resulted in narrower AFOV but better SAEP correction etc).

 

5. Court ruling can be wrong or even unjust, but that is the system we're in, therefore have to accept the facts that there can be misstakes from time to time, but we need to play by the rule ourselves to start with. Just my 2cents.smile.gif


  • eklf, faackanders2 and jetstream like this

#23 jetstream

jetstream

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 657
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Sunset Country NW Ontario

Posted 23 November 2017 - 10:03 AM

 

 

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.

 

The main thing TV still has going for it with the Ethos is that they are better than the clones.  If I wanted to get a 100 deg eyepiece again it would be an Ethos. 

 

I'm curious what you mean by better, as I own both the 21E and Lunt 20mm HDC and your perspective on this is appreciated.



#24 eklf

eklf

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 12 May 2007
  • Loc: Carrboro, NC

Posted 23 November 2017 - 10:07 AM

 

From what I have read over the years on this forum, patent protection would not work.   TV patented the early Type 1 Nagler and that did not stop Meade from cloning them - perhaps made it easier to clone because Meade could work directly off the patent to make small changes.

 

Also as a smaller business it could be difficult to handle the expense for TV to challenge Explore in court with no guarantee of a settlement in their favor. 

 

Yes, this is the story have been repeated many times over and over, sound quite convincing.

 

But, anyone has posted questions about this story?

 

1.Patent protection: patent is at present the only valid legal way to protect an innovation, it is certainly not perfect, just like any other legal system we have, but patent is the only way here. No patent, no legal protection. period.

 

2. How difficult and/or costly to reverse-engineer an eyepiece: Anyone seeing the x-ray picture of 100° ES 14 and 13 Ethos knows it not difficult at all, and buying an eyepiece to find out exact glass types used is not much either for a company aiming making larger quantity of money. therefore

3.Not using patent protection doesn't pose any slightest obstable against cloning, actually making cloning fairly straight forward and much easier.

 

4.Having patent is an additional cost, but others who want to clone need to re-design to get around the patent, like Meade did (by splitting a doublet, resulted in narrower AFOV but better SAEP correction etc).

 

5. Court ruling can be wrong or even unjust, but that is the system we're in, therefore have to accept the facts that there can be misstakes from time to time, but we need to play by the rule ourselves to start with. Just my 2cents.smile.gif

 

 I have also wondered about one thing - it is too easily taken for granted that TV "chose" not to file a patent, without considering that perhaps the ethos design could not be patent-able.  Maybe enough prior art already existed in the annals of optics to make the ethos design not a truly patent-able innovation  (my understanding is that the prior art need not be present in a commercial product.)  

 

Kudos to TV for bringing it to a commercial product.  

 

On the other hand if the design was indeed patent-able, then they should have patented it (it does not cost too much to do so).  TV has built enough goodwill that more people would choose to buy the ethos (on *both* moral and legal grounds).  That, and the knowledge that the TV has a legal gun pointed at them (even if it would cost TV too much to pull it) would have raised the bar higher on the risk for ES to compete against TV.

 

Just pure speculation on my part.  Who really knows if the ethos design is patent-able, or if TV felt confident that no one would enter than niche, or that their "secret sauce" was good enough to make their product stand higher than anybody else, or that they thought they could make enough profit on expected sales to not worry about lost sales?


Edited by eklf, 23 November 2017 - 10:17 AM.

  • faackanders2 and jetstream like this

#25 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8884
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 November 2017 - 10:27 AM

 

 

 

Lot's of entries - getting crowded.

 

This implies greater than normal profits, encouraging new suppliers and new entries where they expect to succeed.

 

When Televue started their niche market with their first Ethos; they could have kept it exclusive by either filing a patent or not setting prices/profit so high.  The more entries into a market ultimately brings prices/profit down as more are competing for sales.  For the customer competition is excellent, and I love 100+ AFOV!

The profit is tiny and the selling price determined by production cost.

What you're really saying is, why didn't they go to China to make them?

Because they didn't think they could get the quality and the eyepieces would soon be sold to Tom, Dick, and Harry with different labels.

 

The main thing TV still has going for it with the Ethos is that they are better than the clones.  If I wanted to get a 100 deg eyepiece again it would be an Ethos. 

 

I'm curious what you mean by better, as I own both the 21E and Lunt 20mm HDC and your perspective on this is appreciated.

 

The Lunt's have a very similar field presentation to the Ethos.  The area where I feel the Ethos are a little better is in terms of quality of the sky background.  The Ethos always have a very clean sky background whereas the ES100's and the Lunt have a little general background scatter.




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