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 150ED review

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#51 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 09 March 2019 - 10:56 PM

Follow up on the 21 Ethos:

 

There was enough focus adjustment left for terrestial targets when I first tried it, but it is just short of focus on stars.

 

Mike

 

 

 



#52 oldmanrick

oldmanrick

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Western Montana, USA

Posted 10 March 2019 - 02:41 PM

Rick,

 

The 150 comes with a pair of 30mm UFF's.

 

The only other longer F/L  2" that works well so far with eye comfort is the 32mm Masuyama, which has a very sharp center field with field curvature distorting the outer 25 percent.

 

I did try a 55mm Plossl for fun, but you have to pull it out very far from the holder to achieve focus. 

 

Favorite 1.25" eyepieces are 8, 10, 14, 17.3 Delos and the 12.5 APM or Doctor 84 degree.

 

Right now I'm comparing the APM120 using the 14 Delos and the APM150 with 17.3 Delos, giving both around 47x with a slightly smaller exit pupil for the 120. Excellent power for open clusters.

 

Mike

foreheadslap.gif Thanks, Mike.  For some reason I was thinking that the 150 came with a pair of 125's.

 

Sounds like the 32 Masuyama wouldn't be worthwhile what with the FC, plus being close to the same FL.

 

Right now I don't have any Delos, and the only TV pair I have are 7mm Delite's.  I do have the 17.5, 9, and 6.5 Baader Morpheus pairs which I like very much for my Lunt 100 APO ED, and should be good in the 150 too.  Also have the 12.5 Docter pair which are outstanding.

 

I still think I will hold off to see if the 150 SD's are brought to market.  May not be able to swing them financially, but could maybe get the 150 ED, or fall back on the 120's which should be a good step up from my 100's.

 

Keep having fun! waytogo.gif

 

Rick



#53 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 10 March 2019 - 03:19 PM

You have enough eyepieces to enjoy the 150 with that collection Rick. 

 

With the 150 my favorites are:

 

30 UFF - 27x

17.3 Delos - 47x

12.5 APM or Doctor - 66x

10 Delos - 82x  

8 Delos for - 103x

 

I was set on the 150 SD version as well, but that could be another year away or possibly not at all if the ED sales are not strong.

 

It's amazing that many here including myself, have dreamed of this binocular for many years and now it's here.

 

Mike


  • jdown, Stellarfire, starzonesteve and 1 other like this

#54 starzonesteve

starzonesteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Joined: 17 May 2014

Posted 10 March 2019 - 04:07 PM

It's amazing that many here including myself, have dreamed of this binocular for many years and now it's here.

 

Mike

 

I’m really enjoying your observations about your observations with the 150. I was blown away by the 100’s and love the 120’s that I currently have. I thought the 150’s were a no go for me because I have a narrow IPD. I recently bought a little gadget to more accurately measure it. On two separate readings it has been 60 and 60.5mm. This is up from the 58-59mm my optometrist measured. If I’m not mistaken the 150’s Have a minimum IPD of 61mm? 

 

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experiences thus far.

 

Steve



#55 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 549
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 10 March 2019 - 04:21 PM

The optometrist messured 63.9 for my IPD, two other methods gave me 65 to 66mm. Always worth checking. Though it seems, that confortable binoviewing at higher powers need some spare mm, at least some people say so...


  • starzonesteve and oldmanrick like this

#56 old_enough

old_enough

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2017

Posted 10 March 2019 - 04:33 PM

I use a pair of Siebert Observatory 34mm eyepieces (also available in 36mm) which should work. Harry can do a high or low shoulder version, depending on the available back focus of the instrument.

I don’t know, whether the Baader Hyperions in 31 and 36mm will come to focus, I think they require lots of travel inwards.

The Nagler T5 20mm should work, but is not easy to find nowadays, especially in pairs... I love those in my binoscope.

Best,
Sebastian
  • oldmanrick likes this

#57 range88

range88

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2014
  • Loc: Shanghai

Posted 10 March 2019 - 07:37 PM

The optometrist messured 63.9 for my IPD, two other methods gave me 65 to 66mm. Always worth checking. Though it seems, that confortable binoviewing at higher powers need some spare mm, at least some people say so...

How power just means small exist pupil, you need to align your eye pupil more precisely.
That means it allows more room for low power but does not mean you need spare for high power.
  • oldmanrick likes this

#58 winterprillan

winterprillan

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2011

Posted 11 March 2019 - 12:53 PM


 

Right now I'm comparing the APM120 using the 14 Delos and the APM150 with 17.3 Delos, giving both around 47x with a slightly smaller exit pupil for the 120. Excellent power for open clusters.

 

Mike

Interesting Mike. What´s your conclusion about this comparison?

Is there enough difference, for the extra weight and size?

//Winter



#59 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 11 March 2019 - 02:01 PM

The difference I see is the 150 fills in areas where stars are either not seen or are barely there, making the cluster appear more dense.

 

If size and weight are an issue, then it's not enough difference to justify the 150.

 

The 120 delivers such excellent performance that it would satisfy most users, and is also better for traveling to dark sky sites. Much smaller carrying case and mount requirements.

 

My 150 sits in an observatory at home, so it's exactly what I wanted for looking deeper from a suburban location. 

 

I'm looking forward to scanning the Milky Way and southern sky this summer.

 

Mike

 

 


  • Dougeo likes this

#60 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 12737
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 12 March 2019 - 08:25 AM

The difference I see is the 150 fills in areas where stars are either not seen or are barely there, making the cluster appear more dense.

 

If size and weight are an issue, then it's not enough difference to justify the 150.

 

The 120 delivers such excellent performance that it would satisfy most users, and is also better for traveling to dark sky sites. Much smaller carrying case and mount requirements.

 

My 150 sits in an observatory at home, so it's exactly what I wanted for looking deeper from a suburban location. 

 

I'm looking forward to scanning the Milky Way and southern sky this summer.

 

Mike

 

The same can be said for 100mm binoculars , but if one wants to push the limits.............

 

In the 15 years I had the fuji 150s, they left home maybe a half dozen times.

 

edj


Edited by edwincjones, 12 March 2019 - 08:29 AM.


#61 winterprillan

winterprillan

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2011

Posted 12 March 2019 - 03:08 PM

I think the 120 is the best portable size and wont give up much to the 150, but still better than 100, and will probably get used more if one has to set it up every time. And there are others that say that the jump from 120 mm to 6 inch is dramatic, and have no problem dealing with 150 every time.



#62 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 12 March 2019 - 05:31 PM

I think it depends on ones interpretation of how dramatic an increase appears when going up in aperture, as well as the particular object being observed.

On nebulae and galaxies, the 150 is clearly brighter and shows more detail than the 120, but open clusters and globulars are more subtle at lower powers.

 

The 150 starts to show its stuff with higher powers and the image remains bright, while the 120 starts to darken. This is really apparent when I use powers over 100x on objects like M13.

The larger exit pupil can benefit observers who don't like to go below a certain size due to floaters and other eye issues.

 

I have 130mm and 160mm refractors and while the image is brighter and more stars are resolved in the 160, l would not use the word dramatic. A 200mm refractor would likely be a different story.

Splitting binaries and planet detail is where the 160 makes a considerable improvement over the 130.

 

If I only had the APM150 binos I would still travel to dark sky sites just as much as the 120, but it does require more effort, which is obviously a problem as you get older.

 

Mike

    


  • jdown, Stellarfire and Dougeo like this

#63 winterprillan

winterprillan

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2011

Posted 13 March 2019 - 12:34 PM

That´s a important info, that the image still remains bright at higher power.

I guess in this small apertures every cm counts. The difference between 120 and 150 should be experienced larger than go from a 20 to 25 dob.



#64 winterprillan

winterprillan

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2011

Posted 13 March 2019 - 12:43 PM

1402678824000_IMG_399170.jpg

 

This is how i will transport my future  binoscope. The bag is Manfrotto rolling gear. Wheight 13 pounds.

Interior is 94x 40x 24 cm.


  • Stellarfire and Kunama like this

#65 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:03 PM

This morning from 2-5am had good enough conditions to compare the APM120 and 150 with similar powers. 

 

I started out at 47x in both using the 14 and 17.3mm Delos. First view was of the globular cluster M5, and it was resolved very nicely in both binos.

Moving back and forth between the two, it is very evident the 150 provides the more impressive image with a brighter core and more stars resolved in the halo.

 

Typical skies around my area are usually not dark enough at these exit pupils to have a near black background, but last night was an exception. I had to check which eyepieces were in because the image scale was larger than expected for 47x. 

 

Seeing started to improve so I quickly switched out to the 8 and 10mm Delos for 82x. This made for a perfect framing of M13 and also brought out much more detail. The propeller shape that is embedded in the cluster was very distinct in the 150, while it had to be searched for the in 120.  

 

Another amazing view was of open cluster M11 at 82x. So many of the faint stars are resolved in both binos that I questioned why I have not been using more than 50x in the past, since it looks so beautiful at that power.

I found myself trying to do star counts in the small asterisms within the cluster. While the 150 always wins the battle, the 120 does a excellent job with over an inch less aperture. 

 

An interesting effect I'm noticing with the 150 is that it seems more sensitive to seeing than the 120. When it starts degrading the 120 appears to hold on to faint stars a bit longer. Seeing has been poor here lately, so I will look further into this to confirm it's real and not my imagination.

 

Mike

 


  • guangtou, Stellarfire, Paul Morow and 3 others like this

#66 starzonesteve

starzonesteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Joined: 17 May 2014

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:14 PM

Great stuff, Mike. Really appreciate you posting your impressions as this comparison holds a lot of interest for me. I’m a bid fan of globs and had a good ‘ol time with M92 in my big dob last week.

 

Steve



#67 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:01 PM

Thanks Steve. 

 

I think you were asking earlier about the IPD adjustment on the 150. I measured a minimum distance of 62mm. 

 

 


  • starzonesteve likes this

#68 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 13 March 2019 - 10:42 PM

That´s a important info, that the image still remains bright at higher power.

I guess in this small apertures every cm counts. The difference between 120 and 150 should be experienced larger than go from a 20 to 25 dob.

Yeah... that's why I got a 36-inch Dob! I only look at the Horsehead for a few seconds at a time, because I don't want to ruin my dark adaptation!  Once made the mistake of aiming it at Jupiter... the light beam exited the eyepiece and nearly burned down he dome!    Tom


  • Mad Matt, edwincjones, starzonesteve and 2 others like this

#69 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 12737
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 14 March 2019 - 05:16 AM

APM150ED  and   36" dob  on topic in same thread  

 

 waytogo.gif


Edited by edwincjones, 14 March 2019 - 05:18 AM.

  • starzonesteve, oldmanrick and Dougeo like this

#70 robertasumendi

robertasumendi

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 27 May 2017
  • Loc: Springfield, Oregon USA

Posted 17 March 2019 - 03:23 AM

The optometrist messured 63.9 for my IPD, two other methods gave me 65 to 66mm. Always worth checking. Though it seems, that confortable binoviewing at higher powers need some spare mm, at least some people say so...

In my testing, 34mm Sieberts have merged successfully for an adult with 54mm ipd, an entire troop of Girl Scouts, my 6 year old daughter, and my 3 year old son. I have yet to test high magnification extensively on people with narrower ipd but minimum ipd of the hardware is not a hard limit on whether a person can use a scope. 

 

Robert



#71 starzonesteve

starzonesteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Joined: 17 May 2014

Posted 17 March 2019 - 09:17 PM

In my testing, 34mm Sieberts have merged successfully for an adult with 54mm ipd, an entire troop of Girl Scouts, my 6 year old daughter, and my 3 year old son. I have yet to test high magnification extensively on people with narrower ipd but minimum ipd of the hardware is not a hard limit on whether a person can use a scope. 

 

Robert

Is that with the APM 150?

 

Steve



#72 robertasumendi

robertasumendi

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 27 May 2017
  • Loc: Springfield, Oregon USA

Posted 18 March 2019 - 06:42 PM

No, with my own scope, sorry should have specified. Mine has a minimum IPD of 58mm. So even though the minimum distance of the scope was larger than the humans using it, they were still able to merge images successfully. Maybe this would produce eye strain over a long observing period, but for sharing the views with an all-ages group regardless of IPD, there are definitely wide 2" eyepieces that work.

 

Robert


Edited by robertasumendi, 18 March 2019 - 06:45 PM.

  • starzonesteve likes this

#73 ZX12

ZX12

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Rhode Island

Posted 26 March 2019 - 11:55 PM

Tonight was another opportunity to try the APM 150 with excellent transparency and good seeing.

I also have my Meade 12" F/8 SCT mounted on the AP1200 right now, so it was interesting to see how they compared on several types of DSO's.

 

Skies here are typically Bortle 4/5 on the best nights, so a good representation of suburban bordering rural neighborhood. It also helps having the ocean just to my south, so no light domes in that direction. 

 

The 150 had a pair of Televue 10mm Delos for 82x and a 1.8mm exit pupil, while the 12" had a 30mm UFF for 81x and a 3.7mm exit pupil.

 

M51 shows a pair of bright cores with a diffuse halo seen distinctly in the 150, while the lower contrast from the larger exit pupil in the 12" makes it appear slightly faded. The cores are brighter in the 12".

 

M81 has a similar appearance with the core being brighter in the 12", but there is clearly more halo seen in the 150.

M82 shows slightly more dark lane detail in the 12", though contrast in the 150 is enough to give an equally pleasing image.

 

The Leo Triplet is interesting because the third component NGC 3628 is often difficult unless transparency is very good. In the 150, it was clearly visible along with the M65 and 66 captured in the field. 

The cores of M65 and 66 were also slightly brighter in the 12", while the halos were not as easily seen. NGC 3628 was also less apparent in the 12".

 

The brighter sky background in the 12" due to the twice as large exit pupil clearly has a dimming effect on faint objects in these conditions, giving the 150 an overall better appearing view.  

 

M3 and M13 are beautiful in both instruments with more stars in the core resolved on the 12". The 150 had the advantage of a darker sky background, which makes globulars appear as bright as in the 12".

The stars were very sharp and pin point in both as well. This particular Meade is the sharpest SCT I have looked through using fairly low powers.

The small cluster near M35, NGC2158 was also more apparent in the 150, but the 12" resolved more of the tiny faint stars within it. 

 

I would guess the APM150 is probably close to a 9" SCT in actual brightness, but the contrast boost from the exit pupil differential really makes a difference from a non dark sky area.

Another factor is the F/8 version of the 12" has quite a large obstruction, which does handicap it's aperture to some degree.

Anyone want to do the math to find out what the equivalent non obstructed optic would be? 

 

Mike 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Stellarfire, denis0007dl and oldmanrick like this

#74 moondreamer

moondreamer

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 03 May 2014
  • Loc: Villerupt , France .

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:10 AM

Thank you Mike ! Very interesting !

 

I did compare my APM 100mm to my Mewlon 210 and had the same feeling.  

 

The 210 showed me spirals arms in M51 at x100 (with Pano 24) under a rural sky so I guess that yours 150 would do the same.

 

Choice between a 14"Dob and those wonderful 150mm will be difficult for me in order to complete my  Mewlon210 and APM 100mm confused1.gif

 

 

Philippe



#75 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 549
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 01 April 2019 - 05:18 PM

What I always find helpful are comparisons with similar exit pupils instead of identical power. Otherwise the bigger scope/ binocular will perform below optimum compared to the smaller one, especially under not so dark skies.


  • starzonesteve likes this


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