34 replies to this topic

[Olimad]

I didn´t want to hack the thread "goldline vs redline", since i do not have the goldline eyepieces. So I start a thread on the redline.

 

I have the 6, 9 and 20mm, and use them on a F4 small newtonian. My sky is light polluted but usually has pretty good seeing and transparency.

 

Using the redline was difficult for me, because of the "kidney beans" stuff. But i have learned to place my eyes better and to maintain the position. So it is not a problem for me anymore.

 

From the 3 in my ownership, the 6mm has the best behavior (scope, eyes and sky - center field sharp and contrasted) and the 20mm the worst (show a lot of "astigmatisms" on the outer field because of my fast newton) but offers 3.4º TFoV, which is not that bad (i am not using it anymore, since I have the flatfield 18mm, which is excellent for me). The 9mm is in between the 6mm and 20mm, but i do not use it that much.

 

I have flocked the inside of the 6mm and 9mm, with remnant of my flocking paper. It is easy to do, since one can unscrew the barrel (with the barlow inside) and also the top cell, which holds the "eye lenses". I find this feature of this eyepiece quite interesting (the TMB planetary clones are also like this). You can see the photos to visualize it better.

 

Having these eyepieces flocked, I really get a better view (contrast) on bright objects. This was the first point, I wanted to mention about these eyepieces.

 

The second point is when I use the focal reducer 0,5x with them. I am not really sure it is a true 0,5x, rather in between 0,5 and 0,7.

 

With the 20mm, results are pretty ugly with my scope. If you want to scare someone, that is the way to go.....

With the 9mm, well not really helpfull.

 

But with the 6mm, I enjoy a better outer field but the center gets somehow sharper, Jupiter with more pronounced colors and somehow appears bigger and with more features seen. The TFoV is bigger. And it is awesome with my 3x apochromatic barlow, I have seen 4 bands and colours on the poles. The RDS was like a white perturbation (line) in the main band with in its inside a faint  pinkish brown circle. The moons more distant were not pinpoints (negative). it was an awesome big view with the Barlow (approx 180x). The best I have experimented so far on Jupiter.

 

On the moon, I can use it together with the telextender and barlow (optics chain quite long ----> telextendr 2x + barlow 3x + FR 0,5x + 6mm). The results are impressive, really. I still have in my head the view of the alpes mons and vallis, the faint Egede , the Mons between Serenitatis and Imbrium, the black area north Hyginus. Everything was with a more 3D effect (a way to say it) and really well contrasted. I calculate that the magnification was between 200x and 240x, and was really impressed.

 

My long optic chain does not work on Jupiter.

The order has its importance. First the telecentric, than the "normal" barlow and the focal reducer fixed to the eyepiece (otherwise it won't work)

 

May be other persons with the 6mm, focal reducer and a F4 scope could tell, if it works good for them??? I would really like to know because my results goes against the odds.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by Olimad, 20 December 2023 - 11:30 AM.

[Maranatha]

I bought the 9mm. I did not have the same success with the kidney beaning. Its terrible, returned the EP. Wide angle…pffft.

[3pyramids]

I didn´t want to hack the thread "goldline vs redline", since i do not have the goldline eyepieces. So I start a thread on the redline.

 

I have the 6, 9 and 20mm, and use them on a F4 small newtonian. My sky is light polluted but usually has pretty good seeing and transparency.

 

Using the redline was difficult for me, because of the "kidney beans" stuff. But i have learned to place my eyes better and to maintain the position. So it is not a problem for me anymore.

 

From the 3 in my ownership, the 6mm has the best behavior (scope, eyes and sky - center field sharp and contrasted) and the 20mm the worst (show a lot of "astigmatisms" on the outer field because of my fast newton) but offers 3.4º TFoV, which is not that bad (i am not using it anymore, since I have the flatfield 18mm, which is excellent for me). The 9mm is in between the 6mm and 20mm, but i do not use it that much.

 

I have flocked the inside of the 6mm and 9mm, with remnant of my flocking paper. It is easy to do, since one can unscrew the barrel (with the barlow inside) and also the top cell, which holds the "eye lenses". I find this feature of this eyepiece quite interesting (the TMB planetary clones are also like this). You can see the photos to visualize it better.

 

Having these eyepieces flocked, I really get a better view (contrast) on bright objects. This was the first point, I wanted to mention about these eyepieces.

 

The second point is when I use the focal reducer 0,5x with them. I am not really sure it is a true 0,5x, rather in between 0,5 and 0,7.

 

With the 20mm, results are pretty ugly with my scope. If you want to scare someone, that is the way to go.....

With the 9mm, well not really helpfull.

 

But with the 6mm, I enjoy a better outer field but the center gets somehow sharper, Jupiter with more pronounced colors and somehow appears bigger and with more features seen. The TFoV is bigger. And it is awesome with my 3x apochromatic barlow, I have seen 4 bands and colours on the poles. The RDS was like a white perturbation (line) in the main band with in its inside a faint  pinkish brown circle. The moons more distant were not pinpoints (negative). it was an awesome big view with the Barlow (approx 180x). The best I have experimented so far on Jupiter.

 

On the moon, I can use it together with the telextender and barlow (optics chain quite long ----> telextendr 2x + barlow 3x + FR 0,5x + 6mm). The results are impressive, really. I still have in my head the view of the alpes mons and vallis, the faint Egede , the Mons between Serenitatis and Imbrium, the black area north Hyginus. Everything was with a more 3D effect (a way to say it) and really well contrasted. I calculate that the magnification was between 200x and 240x, and was really impressed.

 

My long optic chain does not work on Jupiter.

The order has its importance. First the telecentric, than the "normal" barlow and the focal reducer fixed to the eyepiece (otherwise it won't work)

 

May be other persons with the 6mm, focal reducer and a F4 scope could tell, if it works good for them??? I would really like to know because my results goes against the odds.

Im thinking of getting both the 20mm 68° redline and the 18mm uff, both of which i note you have.

Its for my sons svbony mak105.

I can get both shipped for $72

Do you think the sv136 swa 9mm would be a worthwhile eyepiece to add, thoughts, ideas most welcome.

He looks at planets moon and star clusters...

I appreciate the info on these as I wasnt aware the barrel was screwed on.

Regards

 

3 pyramids

[SeattleScott]

So you are stacking barlows with a reducer? The reducer is just canceling out the 2x barlow. Is this a contest to see how long you can make the glass path? Or are you saying you actually prefer the view with the reducer and barlow over the view with just the eyepiece alone? That would indeed be against the odds.

People don’t normally use these reducers visually. But I guess if you stack barlows with them, they could clean up.

[scout]

I tried my new 6mm Svbony Redline for the first time tonight in my 102mm f/7 apo for an hour until the clouds blew in. I was impressed with the sharpness. I bought it to barlow for tight double stars at 238x and it did very well, with crisp Airy disks at that high magnification. I looked at Jupiter unbarlowed at 119x and it was sharp.

 

I had no trouble with kidney beaning, glare or ghosting looking at Jupiter.  The eyecup and sitting down made eye placement easy. Tonight had no Moon, which is where most of those 6mm complaints come from, but I bought it to Barlow at 3mm for close doubles, so I'm very satisfied for a $30 eyepiece.

[Anony]

 

 

I had no trouble with kidney beaning, glare or ghosting looking at Jupiter. 

Won't happen with Jupiter. Kidney beans like to live on the Moon. Some reports of glare/ghosting with the 6mm and Jupiter, but I haven't run across that issue.

 

I also assume daytime viewing may coax kidney beans out too.

Edited by Anony, 09 January 2024 - 02:22 AM.

[Olimad]

Im thinking of getting both the 20mm 68° redline and the 18mm uff, both of which i note you have.

Its for my sons svbony mak105.

I can get both shipped for $72

Do you think the sv136 swa 9mm would be a worthwhile eyepiece to add, thoughts, ideas most welcome.

He looks at planets moon and star clusters...

I appreciate the info on these as I wasnt aware the barrel was screwed on.

Regards

 

3 pyramids

I do not use the 20mm 68º anymore, not great with my scope (i will keep it because it could be better with another scope)

I do use a lot the 18mm UFF, works good with my scope and it is my searching eyepiece - together with the sv207 25mm. 

The SV136 is not really good with my scope.

 

I think you should better take in consideration advice from people using these eyepieces with your kind of scope, because the behavior of an eyepiece is clearly linked to the scope used, and i am not using the same scope as your son. You will get lesser surprises.

 

The UFF 18mm and 10mm are actually available at prices of 55 euros and 28 euros (aliexpress). (what is the cost of production of these?????)

Edited by Olimad, 09 January 2024 - 04:52 AM.

[Olimad]

So you are stacking barlows with a reducer? The reducer is just canceling out the 2x barlow. Is this a contest to see how long you can make the glass path? Or are you saying you actually prefer the view with the reducer and barlow over the view with just the eyepiece alone? That would indeed be against the odds.

People don’t normally use these reducers visually. But I guess if you stack barlows with them, they could clean up.

 

It is clearly something that is not appropriated. I admit, and understand. It was something I tried, for fun.

But the results with the 6mm were really greats on the moon and jupiter. Another positive effect is that on the moon, the effects of the floaters are less pronounced (exit pupil at 0,4/0,5). when i reach 200x on the moon with 4mm TMB barlowed 2x, i get blurry results, with 3x 6mm, floaters and difficult to maintain, with these 2xFE,3xBAr, 0,5xFR and redline 6mm, less floaters and sharper....and somehow more magnifications than with the 3x+6mm. in 2 words, better view.

 

The 0,5x gives clearly bad results with all the EPs i have, but since I have find this positive behavior with the redline 6mm, I always use it on the moon and jupiter (i use also others EPs but without 0,5x).

 

Edit: Question concerning the capacity of a scope.

At which magnification can an observer reach the maximum resolving capacity of a scope ? (let say 1,15 )

Edited by Olimad, 09 January 2024 - 06:52 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

Edit: Question concerning the capacity of a scope.

At which magnification can an observer reach the maximum resolving capacity of a scope ? (let say 1,15 )

 

 

That depends on the visual acuity of the observer.  It also depends on the object.

 

Jon

[3pyramids]

I do not use the 20mm 68º anymore, not great with my scope (i will keep it because it could be better with another scope)

I do use a lot the 18mm UFF, works good with my scope and it is my searching eyepiece - together with the sv207 25mm. 

The SV136 is not really good with my scope.

 

I think you should better take in consideration advice from people using these eyepieces with your kind of scope, because the behavior of an eyepiece is clearly linked to the scope used, and i am not using the same scope as your son. You will get lesser surprises.

 

The UFF 18mm and 10mm are actually available at prices of 55 euros and 28 euros (aliexpress). (what is the cost of production of these?????)

I just purchased the 18mm uff for €65 inc shipping from china, but it came with a free 9mm 68° redline...so im okay with the price.

I think i might buy more filters than that swa... as ill have a good selection of EPs for him to try.

But thanks for the honest info regarding matching scope to EP.

Regards

 

3 pyramids

[Olimad]

That depends on the visual acuity of the observer.  It also depends on the object.

 

Jon

 

Last time i have tried to see this, i checked it on the moon. I know that my collimation was not optimal at that time but seeing/transparency was pretty good.

I managed to resolve clearly Reinhold A (3,74km crater) at 220x (2,2x aperture). At 160x, i noticed something was there but not really visible (too small to clearly see a crater).  (i jumped from 160 to 220x, so do not know where the sweet spot was).

The collimation was not well done. I will have to wait to check it again on the moon with a better collimation.

But from this experience i know that i have to be able to increase the magnification of the scope to reach the "collimated depending"  resolving capacity of the scope.

 

Edit: I mean, i know that, by experience and on the moon, maintaining myself at 1,6x aperture won´t allow me to reach, with a convenient view,  the resolving capacity of the scope. 

Let see what theory says.

Edited by Olimad, 09 January 2024 - 08:32 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

Let see what theory says.

There's a analysis but it requires assumptions about the acuity of the human eye.

 

Jon 

[Olimad]

There's a analysis but it requires assumptions about the acuity of the human eye.

 

Jon 

 

 

Making assumptions sometimes lead us to wrong results. But by doing the reverse way, from the starting point that a 3,47 km crater has been clearly seen and resolve, with 4in f4 40% obstructed at 220x, one could moreless define  the accuracy of the human eye?

[Anony]

220x with a little skyscanner (or equivalent)? That's a lot better than I'd expect. I have a skyscanner here and never even attempted that high. Don't think my starblast even approached that either. And my Astroscan would crumble into pieces if I even tried it...

 

That's more mak territory. Although when I say that, I do wonder that instead of using a giant optics pile-up there, why not just get a small mak to pair with the scope? 

 

You've certainly gotten the most out of that little scope though... think you hit and surpassed what we'd assume is the max mag for a scope that size.

[Olimad]

220x with a little skyscanner (or equivalent)? That's a lot better than I'd expect. I have a skyscanner here and never even attempted that high. Don't think my starblast even approached that either. And my Astroscan would crumble into pieces if I even tried it...

 

That's more mak territory. Although when I say that, I do wonder that instead of using a giant optics pile-up there, why not just get a small mak to pair with the scope? 

 

You've certainly gotten the most out of that little scope though... think you hit and surpassed what we'd assume is the max mag for a scope that size.

 

 

The problem is that I have a contraint here. Autumn, winter, spring, I mostly do astronomy from window edges, and i need a small tabletop there. Only the one from skyscanner fits there. The one from the 130/650 is too big.

I learned from there. How things work etc... It allows me to spend lot of time behind the eyepiece. But the bad side of this, i am really limited (ligth pollution, aperture and portion of available sky) . I realize that i usually have good seeing/transparency. But the learning curves is till ahead of me.

Things will change when i will have more time for me to have bigger set-up and to go more often to darker sites during the working week or weekend. (i went to bortle 8 skies during holidays with this scope and that was amazing).

 

Having a bigger scope with me but not having time to use it would frustrate me. So I prefer to stay like this for the moment. 

 

I am not sure if this small mount could handle the weight of a 102 mak with eyepieces...

 

Nothing special to go to 220x on the moon with this scope. Jupiter saturn are around 160x-180x. I splitted double with more. 

Edited by Olimad, 09 January 2024 - 02:16 PM.

[Anony]

 

 

Having a bigger scope with me but not having time to use it would frustrate me. So I prefer to stay like this for the moment. 

 

I am not sure if this small mount could handle the weight of a 102 mak with eyepieces...

 

Nothing special to go to 220x on the moon with this scope. Jupiter saturn are around 160x-180x. I splitted double with more. 

A starblast tabletop may fit... although it's not in the same ball-park as smallness as the skyscanner mount.

 

And a 102mm likely wouldn't work. But a 90mm Orion does work (sorta). It comes with the same exact tabletop base as the skyscanner does. I'm assuming your Heritage has the same size base as the Orion Skyscanners?

 

As for the 90mm, it works on the tabletop, but it's not ideal. You really need slow motion with a mak. But...  it's not like you have slow motion with your little 100mm reflector at 220x either, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to you.

 

And that said, you are already hitting high mags as it is, so perhaps it wouldn't be a real upgrade for you. 

Edited by Anony, 09 January 2024 - 02:42 PM.

[Olimad]

A starblast tabletop may fit... although it's not in the same ball-park as smallness as the skyscanner mount.

The mount is too big to fit on the external edge, so not a possibility for me. 

 

And a 102mm likely wouldn't work. But a 90mm Orion does work (sorta). It comes with the same exact tabletop base as the skyscanner does. I'm assuming your Heritage has the same size base as the Orion Skyscanners?

Same scope, same mount. 

I asked on the forum, at the very begining, if a mak 102 would make sense for me, and there was a consensus that the mount might not be enough for it. Also, that is the same aperture, and it is not worth to pursue with the idea. So i descarted it. 

 

As for the 90mm, it works on the tabletop, but it's not ideal. You really need slow motion with a mak. But...  it's not like you have slow motion with your little 100mm reflector at 220x either, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to you.

It would make no sense for me, you are right. 

 

And that said, you are already hitting high mags as it is, so perhaps it wouldn't be a real upgrade for you. 

[Jon Isaacs]

Making assumptions sometimes lead us to wrong results. But by doing the reverse way, from the starting point that a 3,47 km crater has been clearly seen and resolve, with 4in f4 40% obstructed at 220x, one could moreless define  the accuracy of the human eye?

 

You could draw some conclusions about your eye.. 

 

Jon

[svenkill]

I hear everyone talk about kidney beaning so prominent with these eye pieces specifically with the moon.  Isn't kidney beaning the result of your pupil dilation?  So viewing bright objects like the moon would make kidney beaning more prominent with a constricted pupil.  Has anyone tried a lunar filter to see if this reduces the kidney beaning issue to allow your pupils to dilate more?

[vtornado]

Has anyone tried a lunar filter to see if this reduces the kidney beaning issue to allow your pupils to dilate more?  --- interesting.

 

I have several ND filters and a variable poloarizer.  But I don't like to use them.  Both lose fine lunar detail for me.  I am unsure if there is a defect with the filter, or throwing away 75% of the light is causing a loss of my eye's resolving power.*  I would like to try a Baader ND filter as it is marketed as optically flat and AR coated.  My other filters are not.  Baader's are $50.00 so kind of an expensive experiment.

 

Kidney beaning of the Redlines on the moon can be solved in most cases by seated observing. 

 

Also one can use another eyepiece, I prefer the AT paradigms and the Celestron Xcel  Lx over the Red lines.  They are more expensive.

 

*Theoretically I could test this with a camera, I don't know if I will ever have the time to try that.

Edited by vtornado, 09 January 2024 - 11:44 PM.

[scout]

I tried my new 6mm Svbony Redline for the first time tonight in my 102mm f/7 apo for an hour until the clouds blew in. I was impressed with the sharpness. I bought it to barlow for tight double stars at 238x and it did very well, with crisp Airy disks at that high magnification. I looked at Jupiter unbarlowed at 119x and it was sharp.

So I just came inside from my second night out with the Svbony 6mm Redline, and the seeing was horrible tonight. A complete 180° from last night. Jupiter looked mushy and stars were shaking at high power.

 

If tonight had been my first night with the 6mm I would have questioned whether it was a decent eyepiece or not. Makes you wonder how many people judge their eyepieces and especially telescopes too soon when it's the atmosphere that is mostly to blame instead of the optics.

[Anony]

I hear everyone talk about kidney beaning so prominent with these eye pieces specifically with the moon.  Isn't kidney beaning the result of your pupil dilation?  So viewing bright objects like the moon would make kidney beaning more prominent with a constricted pupil.  Has anyone tried a lunar filter to see if this reduces the kidney beaning issue to allow your pupils to dilate more?

Never tried that... maybe I should, just to see if it matters. I have a polarizing filter here somewhere. 

 

But like vtornado, my solution is to just use a different eyepiece. I like using my 7-21 zoom on Moon, as it lets me dial in the exact mag.

[svenkill]

I have the 6mm and 9mm coming in the mail. I also have the svbony variable filter I’m going to try. At 6mm, I’m wondering how dim the view is already though and if the filter will only make that worse?

[Maranatha]

I bought the 9mm. I did not have the same success with the kidney beaning. Its terrible, returned the EP. Wide angle…pffft.

Decided to pickup another 9mm, cheaper also, and was surprised to find it somewhat better. Less severe kidney beaning and could actually use it, not bad. Ill chalk up the first one to mass produced quality which is always hit and miss.

 

Their barlows are the same for me. One I like, one I dont.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

Making assumptions sometimes lead us to wrong results. But by doing the reverse way, from the starting point that a 3,47 km crater has been clearly seen and resolve, with 4in f4 40% obstructed at 220x, one could moreless define the accuracy of the human eye?

No, because resolution depends on atmospheric conditions as well (a lot!).
Turbulence (above, around and inside a telescope) impacts resolution by a 2x or 3x factor.
I remember observing Mars on my old 6", seeing was bad and I could only discern major features like Syrtis Majoris, at some point the air calmed down and I could see much smaller features like Sinus Meridiani and Mare Sirenum. Turbulence came back and those tiny details vanished.