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

Best eyepiece for galaxy

beginner eyepieces observing reflector dob
  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#26 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 May 2020 - 08:39 AM

My 2 cents:

 

Last night I spent four and a half hours hunting down faint galaxies and globulars with my 16 inch F/4.4. I was using my Paracorr 2 but I've don't always use it

 

I was using my set of Astro-Tech Paradigms, 60 degree, $60 eyepiece's. The 12 mm was a favorite focal length for galaxies though sometimes I used the 18 mm with a 2X Barlow.  The views were good. The entire set cost $300 though three were demos.. 

 

The night before, same scope, same Paracorr 2, this time i was using my set of Naglers, Ethos, and Panoptics. Each eyepiece new costs more than the entire set of Paradigms. There's about $5000 invested and nearly all were bought used.

 

In the fancy set, the views are more perfect, the fields wider to much wider 

but I essentially saw the same details in both the Paradigms and the TeleVues. I did some comparisons on the Siamese twin galaxies. I saw the same details.

 

I normally use the TeleVues but last night the Paradigms were in the eyepiece racks of my 80 mm refractor and I just started out with the Paradigms and over the course of evening, I never felt the need to switch over even though it would have taken no more than two minutes.

 

My point is that everyone is recommending eyepiece's costing hundreds of dollars and no doubt such eyepiece's are nice. But less expensive eyepieces can also do a good job viewing galaxies, nebulelae, clusters, the planets.. 

 

Jon


Edited by Jon Isaacs, 21 May 2020 - 09:20 AM.

  • Jacques, GeneT, russell23 and 7 others like this

#27 vdog

vdog

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,699
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2018
  • Loc: California Central Valley, U.S.A.

Posted 21 May 2020 - 10:21 AM

I agree with the others in that galaxies can be pretty diverse, but I would assume you mean those that fall into the "faint fuzzy" category (not an official category, but it should be).

 

In my 10" f/ 4.7, I use two focal lengths the most for these types of galaxies:  12.5mm for hunting them down and teasing them out; 9mm for the ones that are bright enough to take a little more magnification.  Mine are Baader Morpheus, but I also agree that less expensive eyepieces can be just as enjoyable.  The Meade UWA 8.8 is a really good eyepiece.

 

That said, I would also point out that galaxy season is winding down and summer Milky Way season is approaching, so, for something more immediately useful, you might want to consider investing instead in a coma corrector and / or a wider angle, longer focal length eyepiece.  Last night, I was using the breathtakingly rich starfields of Cygnus to adjust the spacing on my coma corrector and they would have been something of a mess without it.  I use an inexpensive GSO coma corrector, and there is a learning curve to them (I know because I'm still navigating it) but it's not that complicated.  Just something to think about.



#28 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,862
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 21 May 2020 - 11:12 AM

My 2 cents:

 

Last night I spent four and a half hours hunting down faint galaxies and globulars with my 16 inch F/4.4. I was using my Paracorr 2 but I've don't always use it

 

I was using my set of Astro-Tech Paradigms, 60 degree, $60 eyepiece's. The 12 mm was a favorite focal length for galaxies though sometimes I used the 18 mm with a 2X Barlow.  The views were good. The entire set cost $300 though three were demos.. 

 

The night before, same scope, same Paracorr 2, this time i was using my set of Naglers, Ethos, and Panoptics. Each eyepiece new costs more than the entire set of Paradigms. There's about $5000 invested and nearly all were bought used.

 

In the fancy set, the views are more perfect, the fields wider to much wider 

but I essentially saw the same details in both the Paradigms and the TeleVues. I did some comparisons on the Siamese twin galaxies. I saw the same details.

 

I normally use the TeleVues but last night the Paradigms were in the eyepiece racks of my 80 mm refractor and I just started out with the Paradigms and over the course of evening, I never felt the need to switch over even though it would have taken no more than two minutes.

 

My point is that everyone is recommending eyepiece's costing hundreds of dollars and no doubt such eyepiece's are nice. But less expensive eyepieces can also do a good job viewing galaxies, nebulelae, clusters, the planets.. 

 

Jon

This is exactly right Jon!   You generally get a better aesthetic presentation with the more expensive eyepieces due to cleaner sky background, sharper edge performance, wider fields.  But you don't necessarily see more details with the more expensive eyepieces.

 

Last night I was out with a couple scopes.  I had an 80mm f/11.4 Celestron achromat I recently picked up with a cheap old prism diagonal that probably is not perfectly collimated and I had my SV102 Access with a Vernonscope quartz diagonal. 

 

I did not look to compare views with the scopes.  I was interested in the performance of the 80mm scope as is.  I was actually extremely impressed with the performance at the eyepiece.  The star test was certainly not perfect, but the in focus views were still very good.  What I found interesting as I tried different eyepieces in the scope was the view that seemed to be the best match for the scope was with the stock 20mm Skywatcher plossl that came with my SW120ED.  The eyepiece was sharp to the edge and the view was clean across the field.  I compared it with the view with the 18.2mm DeLite and I almost wondered if the DeLite is possibly optimized for shorter focal ratios than the f/11.4 because it seemed like the 18.2mm DeLite was better at the edges in the 102mm f/7 than the 80mm f/11.4.

 

But another eyepiece that did well last night was the Orion 7-21mm E-series zoom that I picked up.  The eyepiece is sharp, and no it is not as good at any individual focal length as the DeLite's or XF's, but... it provided really nice views and in the 102mm f/7 it seemed sharp across the narrow field right to the edge.  It is as you say, I had some enjoyable views with that $60 eyepiece.
 


  • Jon Isaacs, GeneT and MellonLake like this

#29 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,625
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 21 May 2020 - 11:57 AM

Like others have said, an exit pupil in the 1.2mm to 2mm range will be ideal in most cases.  More distant galaxies and groups/clusters need a tad more magnification for them to stand out better since they are fainter/smaller in areal size.

 

Bill


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#30 Sketcher

Sketcher

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Under Earth's Sky

Posted 21 May 2020 - 12:58 PM

I use my telescope at my sisters ranch always clear there is light behind us but its dim so its mostly dark

OK, you tried.

 

Now, for how your first galaxy will likely appear in your eyepiece:  Are you ready for this?  Here it comes!

 

Looking directly at the galaxy in your eyepiece, you can expect to not see the galaxy.  That's right -- invisible!  But wait.  It gets better.  Really, it does.  When you look off to the side, when you're not looking directly at the galaxy, you see it!  You see a faint, barely perceptible, ghost-like apparition; no structure, no spiral arms.  And that's the galaxy!  So then you try looking directly at it once again -- and "poof", like magic, it's gone.  "Averted vision" is your friend when it comes to galaxies.

 

In all seriousness, that's most likely how you'll see your first galaxy.  Now maybe, just possibly, the view will be slightly better; but I would recommend not letting your hopes and expectations run very far with this.

 

If you've looked at sketches people have made of galaxies, you ought to keep in mind that often, the real thing, in the eyepiece, could only be seen when the sketcher wasn't looking directly at the galaxy.  So, in this way, even sketches of galaxies can be misleading.  It's far more challenging to see a galaxy in one's eyepiece than it is to see the very same galaxy in someone's (anyone's) sketch.

 

*****************************

As you gain more experience looking at galaxies you'll be able to see them better; but experience is necessary in order see most galaxies as anything other than faint, ghost-like apparitions in one's eyepiece -- even if you're using a 10-inch telescope.

 

++++++++++++++++++++

Eyepieces:  It's best to have a variety of magnifications available.  Different galaxies can be better seen at different magnifications.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as a "galaxy eyepiece".  Start with a low magnification, and gradually increase the magnification until you get the view of the galaxy that you prefer.

 

Observing galaxies isn't like making rocket-fuel in your basement.  There's no precise, clear-cut procedure that has to be followed in order to get the desired result.  With galaxies, experimentation (with different eyepieces) is a good thing.  It's not so good to experiment when you're cooking up a batch of rocket fuel. smile.gif


  • Jacques, Jon Isaacs, Rollo and 3 others like this

#31 IVM

IVM

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,606
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008

Posted 21 May 2020 - 03:01 PM

Pentax 6.5-19.5 mm zoom.



#32 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 91,190
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 21 May 2020 - 06:39 PM

I often use a 9mm Explore Scientific 100-degree eyepiece or a 10mm Tele Vue Delos and sometimes a 13mm Tele Vue Ethos for observing galaxies with my 10" f/4.7 Dob, an exit pupil range of 1.9 to 2.8mm.


  • Jon Isaacs, Rollo and CeleNoptic like this

#33 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 22 May 2020 - 12:53 AM

I often use a 9mm Explore Scientific 100-degree eyepiece or a 10mm Tele Vue Delos and sometimes a 13mm Tele Vue Ethos for observing galaxies with my 10" f/4.7 Dob, an exit pupil range of 1.9 to 2.8mm.

 

:waytogo:

 

I find the range from about 3 mm to 1.6 mm to be optimal for many galaxies with the optimal magnification depending on the individual galaxy.  My two larger Dobs operate at F/5.06 and the range between 8 mm and 13 mm where most galaxies are best seen. I cover this with several eyepiece's including the Baader 8-24mm zoom.

 

With $300 to spend on an eyepiece for galaxies, the Hyperion zoom has a lot to offer. In the critical 8mm to 12mm region, the AFOV ranges from about 68° to about 60°. 

 

The ability to zoom means determining the optimal magnification can be done in real time, dial it in instead of swapping eyepiece's.

 

Jon


  • CeleNoptic, jaraxx and stevenrjanssens like this

#34 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 22 May 2020 - 07:48 AM

How would the Speers Waler zooms be?



#35 jaraxx

jaraxx

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 609
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2017

Posted 22 May 2020 - 08:00 AM

waytogo.gif

 

I find the range from about 3 mm to 1.6 mm to be optimal for many galaxies with the optimal magnification depending on the individual galaxy.  My two larger Dobs operate at F/5.06 and the range between 8 mm and 13 mm where most galaxies are best seen. I cover this with several eyepiece's including the Baader 8-24mm zoom.

 

With $300 to spend on an eyepiece for galaxies, the Hyperion zoom has a lot to offer. In the critical 8mm to 12mm region, the AFOV ranges from about 68° to about 60°. 

 

The ability to zoom means determining the optimal magnification can be done in real time, dial it in instead of swapping eyepiece's.

 

Jon

The BHZ offers a lot in other areas as well. If you're wishing to learn about magnifications, galaxies,  and, well, the rest of the observable universe the BHZ is a good investment. And it's a good enough eyepiece that you never need to replace it.


  • Jon Isaacs and stevenrjanssens like this

#36 Riccardo_italy

Riccardo_italy

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Italy

Posted 22 May 2020 - 08:21 AM

I spent about 250€ for my eyepieces set. One was bought second hand (16mm 68°), two were demo items (28mm 68° and 5.5mm 62°) and one is coming from China (10mm UFF).

 

How much do I have to spend to see a significant improvement? For the 28mm, I need at least a Nagler 31mm (maybe the UFF 30mm is slightly better, but not too much). For the others, at the very least I need a set of Morpheus. So, 31mm Nagler + 3 Morpheus = 1500€, or 6 times the cost of my set.

 

And, hey, mine are not super cheap eyepieces. I love the 68°s, very good, sharp to the edges. The 5.5mm 62° may not be super-comfortable, but it is also very sharp (IMHO, a very underestimated eyepiece, and I know what I'm talking about as I had a 7mm T-Japan ortho). Cannot speak for the UFF 10mm, as I have yet to receive it.


Edited by Riccardo_italy, 22 May 2020 - 08:25 AM.

  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#37 grzesznypl

grzesznypl

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Jackson Heights, NY ... for now

Posted 22 May 2020 - 12:37 PM

Buying Nagler (tey are amazing eyepieces) or other super expensive eps does not make sense unless you have telescope with custom made optics, planning to refigure or planning for much better telescope in the future. Because of "commercial" quality of your mirror you will never be able to utilize them to their full potential IMHO.
I would get Paradigms which are arguably consider best budget eyepieces because for $300 you can get entire set of them, TV plossl, used ES 68 or 82 or Badder Mark IV zoom as Jon suggested. The idea is to have more flexibility by covering more focal lengths then just get 1 piece that will eat up your entire budget. 



#38 stevenrjanssens

stevenrjanssens

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 24 May 2018
  • Loc: Vancouver, BC

Posted 22 May 2020 - 06:14 PM

Buying Nagler (tey are amazing eyepieces) or other super expensive eps does not make sense unless you have telescope with custom made optics, planning to refigure or planning for much better telescope in the future. Because of "commercial" quality of your mirror you will never be able to utilize them to their full potential IMHO.

In my opinion this is backwards, instead I feel you can't utilize your telescope's optics to their full potential if the eyepieces you use introduce significant aberrations of their own. But there are certainly diminishing returns and everyone's definition of "significant" will vary.


  • CeleNoptic and russell23 like this

#39 bjkaras

bjkaras

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 24 May 2019
  • Loc: Back and forth between Santa Clara, CA and Las Vegas, NV

Posted 23 May 2020 - 01:25 PM

I use a 9mm Nagler on my 10” f5. 



#40 cimar

cimar

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2018

Posted 23 May 2020 - 03:10 PM

Hi,

on a similar scope (10" f/5 Meade LightBridge) a 10mm delos provided great views on larger galaxies (dark dust in Andromeda, spiral arms of Triangulum etc.) and a 6mm Delos showed the faintest galaxies in galaxy groups and clusters as well as details in smaller galaxies (dust band in NGC4565 and in NGC3628 as example).



#41 grzesznypl

grzesznypl

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Jackson Heights, NY ... for now

Posted 23 May 2020 - 05:20 PM

stevenrjanssens, bjkaras, cimar  ..... this guy has only one 24mm eyepiece and Celestron 3x barlow so do you think that recommend him Nagler, Delos or whatever 1 expensive eyepiece that will eat his entire budget, its a best advice??? He needs middle and high power piece not to mention better low power 30-34mm to begin with.



#42 stevenrjanssens

stevenrjanssens

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 24 May 2018
  • Loc: Vancouver, BC

Posted 23 May 2020 - 06:18 PM

stevenrjanssens, bjkaras, cimar  ..... this guy has only one 24mm eyepiece and Celestron 3x barlow so do you think that recommend him Nagler, Delos or whatever 1 expensive eyepiece that will eat his entire budget, its a best advice??? He needs middle and high power piece not to mention better low power 30-34mm to begin with.

No, I wasn't recommending any particular eyepiece or line. I just disagreed with the idea that you cannot make full use of premium eyepieces in commercial scopes.


  • CeleNoptic and russell23 like this

#43 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,862
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 May 2020 - 06:30 PM

No, I wasn't recommending any particular eyepiece or line. I just disagreed with the idea that you cannot make full use of premium eyepieces in commercial scopes.

That is how I read what you wrote.  And I agree.  One of the aspects of premium eyepieces that make them worth the cost is that they often provide a better presentation.  That is independent of how much detail can be seen.  I generally find that the advantage of premium eyepieces is not as much about "what" can be seen as it is "how" what can be seen is seen.  


  • Jon Isaacs, CeleNoptic and 25585 like this

#44 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 24 May 2020 - 06:48 AM

That is how I read what you wrote.  And I agree.  One of the aspects of premium eyepieces that make them worth the cost is that they often provide a better presentation.  That is independent of how much detail can be seen.  I generally find that the advantage of premium eyepieces is not as much about "what" can be seen as it is "how" what can be seen is seen.  

 

:waytogo:

 

I agree.  As I mentioned previously, I have a collection of TeleVue eyepieces. In my scopes,  commercial, home brew as well as premium,  they provide near perfect views. And as a star hopper, those wide, sharp across the field views are not only aesthetically pleasing but helpful in hunting down difficult targets.

 

But for the pursuit of galaxies, having the right focal length/exit pupil for a particular galaxy is more important that what a single high end eyepiece brings unless that eyepiecevisva zoom.

 

Jon


  • MellonLake likes this

#45 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 24 May 2020 - 07:06 AM

waytogo.gif

 

I agree.  As I mentioned previously, I have a collection of TeleVue eyepieces. In my scopes,  commercial, home brew as well as premium,  they provide near perfect views. And as a star hopper, those wide, sharp across the field views are not only aesthetically pleasing but helpful in hunting down difficult targets.

 

But for the pursuit of galaxies, having the right focal length/exit pupil for a particular galaxy is more important that what a single high end eyepiece brings unless that eyepiecevisva zoom.

 

Jon

Jon

 

Do you have particular eyepieces for particular individual or type of galaxies? 

 

What would you choose for spirals to see arms details compared to ellipticals, and to differenciate colour if possible?

 

My favourite elliptical are M104 Sombrero & M87. Mainly I go after globular clusters, sort of mini-ellipticals, challenging DSOs in smaller apertures (max is 12" F5).

 

For supernova spotting what do you use?    



#46 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 24 May 2020 - 10:48 AM

Jon

 

Do you have particular eyepieces for particular individual or type of galaxies? 

 

What would you choose for spirals to see arms details compared to ellipticals, and to differenciate colour if possible?

 

My favourite elliptical are M104 Sombrero & M87. Mainly I go after globular clusters, sort of mini-ellipticals, challenging DSOs in smaller apertures (max is 12" F5).

 

For supernova spotting what do you use?    

 

Some people have favorites, I basically use my Naglers and Ethos's, sometimes my Baader zoom and optimize the view for a particular object. I do find the 11mm typev6 is often the right eyepieces in my 16 and 22 inch, they're F/5.06 with the Paracorr 2.

 

I'm more on the preferred telescope side than the preferred eyepiece side.

 

Jon



#47 RLK1

RLK1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 24 May 2020 - 11:52 AM

My 2 cents:

 

Last night I spent four and a half hours hunting down faint galaxies and globulars with my 16 inch F/4.4. I was using my Paracorr 2 but I've don't always use it

 

I was using my set of Astro-Tech Paradigms, 60 degree, $60 eyepiece's. The 12 mm was a favorite focal length for galaxies though sometimes I used the 18 mm with a 2X Barlow.  The views were good. The entire set cost $300 though three were demos.. 

 

The night before, same scope, same Paracorr 2, this time i was using my set of Naglers, Ethos, and Panoptics. Each eyepiece new costs more than the entire set of Paradigms. There's about $5000 invested and nearly all were bought used.

 

In the fancy set, the views are more perfect, the fields wider to much wider 

but I essentially saw the same details in both the Paradigms and the TeleVues. I did some comparisons on the Siamese twin galaxies. I saw the same details.

 

I normally use the TeleVues but last night the Paradigms were in the eyepiece racks of my 80 mm refractor and I just started out with the Paradigms and over the course of evening, I never felt the need to switch over even though it would have taken no more than two minutes.

 

My point is that everyone is recommending eyepiece's costing hundreds of dollars and no doubt such eyepiece's are nice. But less expensive eyepieces can also do a good job viewing galaxies, nebulelae, clusters, the planets.. 

 

Jon

I'll be doing a blinded assessment tonight under dark skies on the Siamese Twins and other objects with three 18mm eyepieces: a UO ortho, a paradigm and a russell optics eyepiece. My main objective is to determine, objectively as possible, if the image(s) are actually noticeably brighter through the orthoscopic eye (as some have claimed) than the other eyepieces. My initial observations, in front of my moderately light polluted home, and without blinding, indicated the ortho definitely provides a brighter image but I want to remove observer-bias from the equation so I'll use a blinded assessment under darker skies to do so.


  • russell23 likes this

#48 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 24 May 2020 - 04:50 PM

RLK1:

 

I'm not sure how one can do a blind test with eyepieces with quite different AFoVs, it's diffifult to mistake the Paradigm for an ortho. I think one just has to make an honest comparison and leave it at that. 

 

What scope will you be using?

 

The night before, I'd made a comparison between the 12 mm Paradigm and the the 11mm and 13 mm Type 6 Naglers in my 16 inch but the Siamese twins seemed bright in all three, I'd prefer galaxies that were barely visible. Not a test of brightness exactly but the critical test.

 

The Naglers seemed somewhat/slightly brighter which is what I'd expect, similar number of elements but better coatings. 

 

The big difference in the view of a galaxy would be an 18mm versus a 12 mm. 

 

Jon


  • russell23 likes this

#49 RLK1

RLK1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 26 May 2020 - 04:22 PM

RLK1:

 

I'm not sure how one can do a blind test with eyepieces with quite different AFoVs, it's diffifult to mistake the Paradigm for an ortho. I think one just has to make an honest comparison and leave it at that. 

 

What scope will you be using?

 

The night before, I'd made a comparison between the 12 mm Paradigm and the the 11mm and 13 mm Type 6 Naglers in my 16 inch but the Siamese twins seemed bright in all three, I'd prefer galaxies that were barely visible. Not a test of brightness exactly but the critical test.

 

The Naglers seemed somewhat/slightly brighter which is what I'd expect, similar number of elements but better coatings. 

 

The big difference in the view of a galaxy would be an 18mm versus a 12 mm. 

 

Jon

Just got back from my dark sky sites. I'll preface my findings with the understanding that it's not a scientific study by any means and I conducted a blinded assessment with one goal in mind, that being to remove my own observer bias from the equation. I artificially reduced the field of view with added field stops to 30 degrees so anything I was observing in my 16" F4.5 dob was pretty much in my face, given the soda straw view afforded to me by doing so. I placed blackened plastic cover/holders over the exposed portions of the eyepieces and while you could see the eye lens from the housing during the day, it was unrecognizable at night. 

Keep in mind the 18mm comparo is for determining a potential light throughput difference visually and does not represent the optimum choice for viewing galaxies in my scope. In this case, the last thing you might want to do is to use eyepieces of differing focal lengths since you can perceive a difference in contrast and an apparent darkening of the field of view with eyepieces of varying magnifications. 

I'll describe my viewing circumstances first and then I'll cut to the chase and tell you how I saw it at the time of my observations. First, while my dark sky site atop Mt Pinos on Sunday evening afforded excellent transparency and good seeing, intermittent wind gusts, (and not predicted by several weather/chart models), made viewing difficult throughout the evening. Several visual observers left early and the astro-imagers did so remotely from their RVs. Nevertheless, I had some of the best views of galaxies I've seen in my scope in quite awhile. I took one SQM reading early on at 10:00pm and it was 21.49, and likely higher later in the evening. A persistent cloud cover to the North probably suppressed the light dome from the city of Bakersfield and I could occasionally see the top of a cloud bank from the north end of the site. I was able to hit virtually every galaxy note in Volume 2 of "The Observer's Guide" in the constellations of CV,CB, Leo and Ursa Major in about 20-30 minutes. Unfortunately, Virgo was untenable due to the wind conditions. I decided to concentrate on Corvus, a constellation that doesn't rise very high in my latitude. The ring tail galaxy was one of my test choices and I could easily observe the subtle mottling in the inner regions without the need for averted vision while using my 9mm ES 100 eyepiece. By feel, I subsequently placed each of my covered 18mm test eyepieces, with and without a paracorr and with and without a CLS filter and recorded my results. I repeated the procedure with two nearby interacting galaxies, NGC 4782 and NGC 4783. As promised, I'll cut to the chase: my recorded-blinded observations at time gave me a brighter perceived image thru the 18mm UO Ortho than thru the 18mm astroguider paradigm and an 18mm Russell optics eyepieces which I had recorded as "same level of brightness"versus "greater level of brightness".

Again, this is something I did for my own edification. I wanted to know if I what had heard and read was accurate relative to the reported "noticeably brighter" image of a UO orthoscopic eyepiece. I wanted to do so as accurately as I could in the field without any preconceived notions on my part that might have led me to imagine I had seen some sort of change when I did not. In my case, I do not wear glasses or contacts and I have 20/20 vision. I also happen to have blue eyes and people who have either blue or green eyes have have better night vision and low light sensitivity than those with brown or darker colored eyes. The latter is a scientifically established fact and you can verify it by google if you want to. So, while your mileage may very, I'm satisfied that what I've read regarding the reported, "noticeably brighter" images thru a UO ortho to be correct, at least in my circumstance. I normally observe until two or three in the morning and rarely do I pull a Pensak and stay up all night like he does when he's up at Pinos. I got up intermittent to do more observing but the gosh darn winds made it rough...


  • AstroVPK likes this

#50 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,244
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 27 May 2020 - 02:11 AM

Just got back from my dark sky sites. I'll preface my findings with the understanding that it's not a scientific study by any means and I conducted a blinded assessment with one goal in mind, that being to remove my own observer bias from the equation. I artificially reduced the field of view with added field stops to 30 degrees so anything I was observing in my 16" F4.5 dob was pretty much in my face, given the soda straw view afforded to me by doing so. I placed blackened plastic cover/holders over the exposed portions of the eyepieces and while you could see the eye lens from the housing during the day, it was unrecognizable at night. 

Keep in mind the 18mm comparo is for determining a potential light throughput difference visually and does not represent the optimum choice for viewing galaxies in my scope. In this case, the last thing you might want to do is to use eyepieces of differing focal lengths since you can perceive a difference in contrast and an apparent darkening of the field of view with eyepieces of varying magnifications. 

I'll describe my viewing circumstances first and then I'll cut to the chase and tell you how I saw it at the time of my observations. First, while my dark sky site atop Mt Pinos on Sunday evening afforded excellent transparency and good seeing, intermittent wind gusts, (and not predicted by several weather/chart models), made viewing difficult throughout the evening. Several visual observers left early and the astro-imagers did so remotely from their RVs. Nevertheless, I had some of the best views of galaxies I've seen in my scope in quite awhile. I took one SQM reading early on at 10:00pm and it was 21.49, and likely higher later in the evening. A persistent cloud cover to the North probably suppressed the light dome from the city of Bakersfield and I could occasionally see the top of a cloud bank from the north end of the site. I was able to hit virtually every galaxy note in Volume 2 of "The Observer's Guide" in the constellations of CV,CB, Leo and Ursa Major in about 20-30 minutes. Unfortunately, Virgo was untenable due to the wind conditions. I decided to concentrate on Corvus, a constellation that doesn't rise very high in my latitude. The ring tail galaxy was one of my test choices and I could easily observe the subtle mottling in the inner regions without the need for averted vision while using my 9mm ES 100 eyepiece. By feel, I subsequently placed each of my covered 18mm test eyepieces, with and without a paracorr and with and without a CLS filter and recorded my results. I repeated the procedure with two nearby interacting galaxies, NGC 4782 and NGC 4783. As promised, I'll cut to the chase: my recorded-blinded observations at time gave me a brighter perceived image thru the 18mm UO Ortho than thru the 18mm astroguider paradigm and an 18mm Russell optics eyepieces which I had recorded as "same level of brightness"versus "greater level of brightness".

Again, this is something I did for my own edification. I wanted to know if I what had heard and read was accurate relative to the reported "noticeably brighter" image of a UO orthoscopic eyepiece. I wanted to do so as accurately as I could in the field without any preconceived notions on my part that might have led me to imagine I had seen some sort of change when I did not. In my case, I do not wear glasses or contacts and I have 20/20 vision. I also happen to have blue eyes and people who have either blue or green eyes have have better night vision and low light sensitivity than those with brown or darker colored eyes. The latter is a scientifically established fact and you can verify it by google if you want to. So, while your mileage may very, I'm satisfied that what I've read regarding the reported, "noticeably brighter" images thru a UO ortho to be correct, at least in my circumstance. I normally observe until two or three in the morning and rarely do I pull a Pensak and stay up all night like he does when he's up at Pinos. I got up intermittent to do more observing but the gosh darn winds made it rough...

Did a bit of googling, and I can find no evidence that people with blue or green eyes have better low light sensitivity.

 

All I can find is web sites where some people assert this as a claim, but provide no evidence. I also can't find anything on google scholar, but might be using the wrong search terms (and as soon as you mention 'night vision', you get a pile of research on electronics).

 

If you have something you can pass along I'd be interested to take a gander.




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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: beginner, eyepieces, observing, reflector, dob



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics