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

7mm Shootout in the works

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#1 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 03 November 2018 - 02:12 PM

7mm XW

7mm DeLite

7mm Nikon SW

6.5mm Morpheus

 

First I will compare them in my 120ED.  Then after a few month/sessions I will pass them on to my friend so he can use them in his 150ED.  We will compare notes after we have both had a chance to form impressions.  

Attached Thumbnails

  • CE281840-968B-4C34-AC23-AFE1A0F88F13.jpeg

  • John Gauvreau, RAKing, george tatsis and 8 others like this

#2 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 03 November 2018 - 02:47 PM

I have the XW and Morpheus, so will be intetested in how you find both & against the others. 



#3 rustynpp

rustynpp

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 03 November 2018 - 03:01 PM

I have the XW and Morpheus, so will be intetested in how you find both & against the others. 

What are your thoughts on the XW vs. the Morpheus? Which do you find yourself using more often?


  • Procyon likes this

#4 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 03 November 2018 - 03:31 PM

What are your thoughts on the XW vs. the Morpheus? Which do you find yourself using more often?

I find myself using the Morpheus more as I have the whole range and they are parfocal.

 

However when using my XW 10mm, and want a gentle power boost, the XW gets used. Likewise using an 8-24 zoom and wanting more AFOV for higher magnification.

 

Both eps are good to the edge in a F5 Newtonian. Baader eye positioning is a little more forgiving, but eye relief distance is about the same. The Pentax is nicer for viewing without glasses, I have been told. It gives better shielding from light outside.

 

There is no outright winner, less magnification from the Pentax makes it the better choice realistically for my personal viewing. M13 is great in both on a clear night, I see the ball and outer stars easily. Starman1 has written the Delos shows up reds well, I will be using both XW and BM to see how they compare as Pop. II stars are interesting to me .


  • rustynpp, Dr Morbius, Jaimo! and 1 other like this

#5 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 03 November 2018 - 04:26 PM

I'll save you the time. Optically, the winner is: Nikon NAV-7SW. wink.gif

 

Well, at least that was my findings, with my observing partners concurring, in comparing the 7SW, 7XW, 7DL, as well as 7T6, Leica ASPH w/1.8x, and a 6E tossed in, using APO doublet refractors ranging from 85mm f/7 to 100mm f/9. (Disclaimer: I have no interest in the Morpheus line and have not used them.)

 

I've posted my findings before. What prompted me to reply here is... My first thought when I saw your post was, now? What about Jupiter and Saturn? Jupiter has certainly been integral to previous evaluations and discussions of these same EPs. If you go back and look at all the discussion when the 7DL came out, I suspect that you'd find one of the most referenced aspects was sharpness and contrast relating to lunar and Jupiter observations. Though I had already decided to replace my XWs with the SWs, I held on to them when I also decided to pursue a Tak FC-100DL. I was glad I did, as previous findings were clearly affirmed in the new scope, with some of the most notable differences relating to banding seen on Saturn, and the crispness or clarity of details on Jupiter. 


  • EverlastingSky likes this

#6 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4011
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 03 November 2018 - 04:37 PM

I'm looking forward to the comparison. I've got the 7 XW and Lecia + 1.8 extender, but have not tried the Morpheus in 6.5 (had the 14, have the 17.5), and had a Nikon SW in 17.5 and was not a fan. I think the Leica is sharper than the XW, but the XW is no slouch, and for me very comfortable to use.

 

I've heard some positive comments on the Nikon, but have not heard any good information about the barrel distortion (which in the 17.5 was too much to bear for me).



#7 precaud

precaud

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2012
  • Loc: north central New Mexico

Posted 03 November 2018 - 07:32 PM

My first thought when I saw your post was, now? What about Jupiter and Saturn?

 

My thought exactly. Bad time for the test.



#8 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 03 November 2018 - 07:52 PM

Well let's see.  First, I got to observe for 5 straight days the first week in July.  Then I spent the rest of the summer waiting for clear skies - watching an entire lunar cycle pass without a single clear night.  On the handful of clear nights between July and this past week the sky conditions have been so poor that the 129x these eyepieces will give in my scope was too much for the seeing conditions.   In other words, I don't live in New Mexico or Southern California.  There was no good planetary observing this summer where I live - literally just one night where I could go past 130x.

 

Second, as a teacher, summer time is the worst time to drop $700 on eyepieces.

 

Third, the Moon can be observed year round and is actually better during the winter than the summer.

 

Fourth, there is more to observe than the Moon and planets unless the sky has altered since that first week in July.    There are these things called "deep sky" objects:  Star clusters, nebula, galaxies.  You actually can look at some of them with a 7mm eyepiece.  


  • izar187, RAKing, george tatsis and 8 others like this

#9 Kutno

Kutno

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Posted 03 November 2018 - 08:36 PM

7mm XW

7mm DeLite

7mm Nikon SW

6.5mm Morpheus

 

First I will compare them in my 120ED.  Then after a few month/sessions I will pass them on to my friend so he can use them in his 150ED.  We will compare notes after we have both had a chance to form impressions. 

 

 

 

 

Look forward to your future writings, regarding the comparisons.



#10 nicoledoula

nicoledoula

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2018

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:29 PM

Wish the HD60 6.5mm was included.


  • leviathan likes this

#11 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:40 PM

[...]

 

Fourth, there is more to observe than the Moon and planets unless the sky has altered since that first week in July.    There are these things called "deep sky" objects:  Star clusters, nebula, galaxies.  You actually can look at some of them with a 7mm eyepiece.  

Thank you for clueing us into things called "deep sky" objects. I had never heard of them. ohmy.gif

 

No one would dispute that there is more to observe than the moon and planets. I certainly don't evaluate an EP based only on those targets. (And I'm sorry your observing conditions have not been favorable.) But, I put a lot of weight on those targets when evaluating an EP, and I doubt anyone would dispute that a comparison of these higher mag EPs is remotely complete if, at the very least, performance on Jupiter is not considered. In fact, between some of these, I think planetary is where the difference is to be seen.


Edited by slack, 03 November 2018 - 11:43 PM.


#12 Jaimo!

Jaimo!

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3130
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Exit 135 / 40° North

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:47 PM

Dave,

I am very interested in your results, appreciate your efforts, and commend your willingness to share with the community.  I will be following this thread with great interest.

 

Thank you,

Jaimo!



#13 greenjuice

greenjuice

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2017
  • Loc: NW CT.

Posted 04 November 2018 - 12:40 AM

Yes Dave, please do continue. Many of us here in the NE Are curious to hear what others are seeing through this cloud bank we call a sky salute.gif

Cheers,

M.



#14 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 02:43 AM

Sigh.  The hourly forecast showed skies clearing up at midnight/1am and remaining clear through sunrise. So I went to bed with the plan to get out in the middle of the night.  I just got up 15 minutes ago, saw stars through my east facing window, came downstairs, got on my observing layers for the 35 degs, and get outside to find - completely overcast except for the patch in the east seen through my east facing window.   This has been the northeast observing this year.   Even an hourly forecast that shows clear skies just a few hours away cannot be trusted.


  • Procyon likes this

#15 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 02:58 AM

Thank you for clueing us into things called "deep sky" objects. I had never heard of them. ohmy.gif

 

No one would dispute that there is more to observe than the moon and planets. I certainly don't evaluate an EP based only on those targets. (And I'm sorry your observing conditions have not been favorable.) But, I put a lot of weight on those targets when evaluating an EP, and I doubt anyone would dispute that a comparison of these higher mag EPs is remotely complete if, at the very least, performance on Jupiter is not considered. In fact, between some of these, I think planetary is where the difference is to be seen.

I would argue planetary is where the difference is to be seen ... when observing planets.   The Moon is where the difference can be seen ... when observing the Moon.   Deep sky is where the difference is to be seen ... when observing deep sky.

 

For example,  When the Nikon NAV's first came out I bought the 17.5mm.  With the 3x TV barlow it gave supremely sharp lunar views.  However, it also had one of the worst cases of EOFB I have seen when observing DSO.  So for the Moon it was great.  For deep sky, not so much.  I actually have stayed away from the Nikon's because of the EOFB until I decided to pick up the 7mm and 10mm this week.  My thinking is that if these eyepieces also have the EOFB, but are sharper than the Morpheus for lunar observations I will use them as lunar/planetary eyepieces because I know the Morpheus are outstanding deep sky eyepieces.

 

I really have no idea which of these four 7mm eyepieces I will like the most.  That is why I am doing the comparison.  It was my friend's idea.  He has the 7mm XW but also likes the 5mm DeLite and was asking about the 7mm DeLite and the 7mm Nikon.  He also loves the 9mm Morpheus but does not have the 6.5mm.  I have the Morpheus now but in the past had the 7mm XW and the 7mm DeLite - but never any of these eyepieces at the same time.  So we decided to pick up the 7mm DeLite and 7mm Nikon and will each compare on our own over the next few months as skies allow.   I'm getting first chance to directly compare all 4 eyepieces and then I will pass his 7mm XW and the other three eyepieces on to him and he can do his own comparison.   Given the way skies are around here, the comparison may still be going on when Jupiter reappears.


Edited by russell23, 04 November 2018 - 03:01 AM.

  • CollinofAlabama, RAKing and Procyon like this

#16 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 04:01 AM

After finishing the last post I checked and the clouds had mostly cleared out.  So I went out and spent 45 minutes of frustration with clouds cleared out and then clouds rolling in.  These were semi-thin  sheets of clouds that blanket the sky.  So I managed to get a look at the Orion Nebula and M35 before I gave up with the latest blanket passing through.  In the minutes when the clouds completely rolled out the sky was very nice.  But it was worthless for any meaningful comparisons.  I did note that the 10mm and 7mm Nikon do not have the same EOFB that I saw with the 17.5mm.  So that was good.



#17 precaud

precaud

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2012
  • Loc: north central New Mexico

Posted 04 November 2018 - 09:17 AM

Yeah, the jet stream is digging down and making for bad seeing for a huge swath of the country:

http://weather.unisy...=91&t=4p&view=2



#18 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:05 AM

My thought exactly. Bad time for the test.

Plenty of other detailed things in the sky to test out the 7s on. Also these are owner reviews, not commercial evaluations.

 

AFA Nikon SWs go, using an EiC-16 (1.6x) converter lens improves their performance. For more magnification, a Zeiss Abbe 2x Barlow is good too, though not specifically dedicated.


Edited by 25585, 04 November 2018 - 10:05 AM.


#19 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:15 AM

Plenty of other detailed things in the sky to test out the 7s on. Also these are owner reviews, not commercial evaluations.

 

AFA Nikon SWs go, using an EiC-16 (1.6x) converter lens improves their performance. For more magnification, a Zeiss Abbe 2x Barlow is good too, though not specifically dedicated.

Geez... When did extensive low contrast details on Jupiter get dismissed from virtually any "eyepiece shootout." Perhaps it's not a "shootout," but something lesser? ;)

 

Anyway, I don't think I've heard of the SWs needing improving of their performance; at least in the 5-10mm FLs via the EiC-16. While I wish there was a NAV-3.5SW, I've never pursued the 1.6x barlow. By my standards, I don't see how the 5, 7, and 10mm performance could be improved upon, in my scopes.



#20 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:15 AM

Yeah, the jet stream is digging down and making for bad seeing for a huge swath of the country:

http://weather.unisy...=91&t=4p&view=2

Parked right over Colorado.....



#21 slack

slack

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Joined: 02 May 2012
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:22 AM

Are you guys talking about those contrail thingies? scratchhead2.gif  flowerred.gif


  • precaud likes this

#22 precaud

precaud

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2012
  • Loc: north central New Mexico

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:32 AM

Parked right over Colorado.....

As it so often is...



#23 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:39 AM

Geez... When did extensive low contrast details on Jupiter get dismissed from virtually any "eyepiece shootout." Perhaps it's not a "shootout," but something lesser? wink.gif

 

Anyway, I don't think I've heard of the SWs needing improving of their performance; at least in the 5-10mm FLs via the EiC-16. While I wish there was a NAV-3.5SW, I've never pursued the 1.6x barlow. By my standards, I don't see how the 5, 7, and 10mm performance could be improved upon, in my scopes.

I read about people observing 20 nights each month and regularly pushing scopes to 500x or greater.  When you have those conditions regularly then extensive study of low contrast details on Jupiter becomes realistic.  I routinely find - when it is clear - that the 9mm Morpheus (100x with my APO) is the highest magnification that is not affected by the seeing.  I can get to 140x often enough that the 6.5 & 7mm eyepieces can get some use, but most of the time the seeing simply does not allow for interesting planetary observations of the kind you are talking about.

 

So if I want to compare eyepieces, I'm comparing them for the kinds of targets that I can regularly observe: deep sky and the Moon.   As for planetary observations - the Morpheus have been great on the nights when the seeing has allowed me to try planets.  With the 1.6x Nikon barlow I get ~164x with the 9mm Morpheus and ~224x with the 6.5mm Morpheus.  I recall 1 night this summer where 224x was a useful magnification.

 

For my purposes I'm really looking to find out which of these eyepieces is best on the Moon.   I then assume that the same eyepiece will be best for the plants on those nights when seeing allows.  I already know which eyepiece is definitely not making the cut for the Moon from prior experience.  I will be surprised if any of them beat the Morpheus for deep sky.  The little bit of observing last night suggests that they will not.


Edited by russell23, 04 November 2018 - 10:44 AM.


#24 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:47 AM

Wish the HD60 6.5mm was included.

I'm probably not going to grab one of those at this time.  At some point it is just too many eyepieces to compare.  I might another time grab the 6.5mm HD60 and the 6.5mm ES52 just to see how they compare with the 6.5mm Morpheus. 



#25 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9499
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:50 AM

Plenty of other detailed things in the sky to test out the 7s on. Also these are owner reviews, not commercial evaluations.

 

AFA Nikon SWs go, using an EiC-16 (1.6x) converter lens improves their performance. For more magnification, a Zeiss Abbe 2x Barlow is good too, though not specifically dedicated.

Under the crazy cloud field rolling through every 5 min conditions last night edge performance was one of the few things I took a look at.  Both the 10mm and 7mm Nikon SW were sharp right to the field stop so the 1.6x barlow is not needed to improve their edge performance.   I have the 1.25" Nikon 1.6x and hope to use it with these eyepieces on the next lunar cycle ... should seeing conditions allow.  Generally I find the steadiest seeing conditions for the Moon do occur over the winter.




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