95 replies to this topic

[25585]

not answering for Jon..but seems no one likes the redcuced field of view from 78ish to 72ish

personally, the presentation is very similar and I actually really like the 17

Me too.

[25585]

Yeah it is odd how Baader markets them as 76°, specifically for the 14 and 17.5 which would be fine if the actual AFOV was larger and they were rounding down but in this case, it's not. Rounding all the way up to 76° from 72° strikes me as a little bit on the deceptive side.

 

Mike B says the 17.5 is 76° as he saw a difference between the Delos 17.3 and 17.5, which likely can be chalked up to magnification difference, in retrospect.

0.3mm FL will show no difference, except perhaps the 17.5 is more immersive, so you see, or feel you see a larger fov. 

[Jon Isaacs]

My mistake.

 

All of the Morphii feel similar across the focal lengths, owing to their thin barrels.

 

Performance is not the same across the focal lengths in my faster sub f/4 scopes though. You have noted the same for your NP-101.
 

 

Tay:  Did you find the 13.9 mm not as sharp as the the others in your sub F/4 Scopes?

 

I agree the presentation is similar across the fields but the 72.2° of the 17.2 mm is noticeably narrower than the others.  

 

Also, after you reposted Don's information, I'm trying to remember the actual focal lengths.  It really only matters with the 6.7mm and the 4.8 mm.

 

Ideally there would be a 22 mm 72° Morpheus and a 3.5 mm Morpheus. 

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 15 March 2025 - 10:41 AM.

[TayM57]

I can only speak to the M9 and M12.5. I had the other focal lengths but that was too long ago and I don't remember the performance in my 8" f/3. I plan to re-acquire the entire set in addition to the two I have now. I also have added more fast scopes since I last had the Morphii.

 

In my 24" f/3.17 (f/3.64 w/ P2), my 9" f/3 (f/3.45 w/ P2), and my 17.5 f/3.4 (f/3.9 w/ P2):

 

The Morpheus 9 is sharper across the FOV when paired with a Paracorr 2.

 

The Morpheus 12.5 paired with the P2 is a bit of a mess with fuzzy stars across the FOV.

 

I don't really use the M12.5 at all in my fast scopes. It isn't something you have to look for. It jumps out at you immediately. The first thought that comes to mind is the seeing is very bad.

 

Once I acquire the entire line, which should be soon, I'll post a thread similar to Don's recent thread about his eyepieces. Brief and concise remarks about each EP in sub f/4 scopes.

 

I don't find the Morpheus 9 to be objectionable. I find the Morpheus 12.5 objectionable and don't like the view at all.

 

My 17.5" isn't coated so I haven't really used the Morpheus 12.5 extensively in that scope as I've primarily used the Morpheus 9. With the focal ratio being close to f/4 with the Paracorr, the 12.5 might be ok.

 

I'll have the complete Morphii lineup by summer so I'll be able to provide a more detailed answer then.

[LDW47]

Hi everyone! I’m having a hard time deciding between the Morpheus and apm to build a set of (or maybe a combination of both) and I would appreciate if you could share your experience with each eyepiece to make a clearer decision.
They’ll be used on a 10” F4.7 dob, currently I own the ES 30/82, ES 20/68 and baader baader zoom eyepieces.
The 30/82 gets very little use as it is too wide most of the time (and too heavy), the 20/68 is a great EP but the Fov is too narrow for my liking and I plan to keep the baader zoom as a planetary eyepiece + Barlow. (I don’t wear glasses ).
I’ll appreciate any input that helps with the decision, thanks in advance!

I can't speak for the APM's but I do have a complete set of Morpheus eps, it will be pretty hard to do better.  IMHO !  Good Luck in your hunt.

Edited by LDW47, 15 March 2025 - 11:47 AM.

[LDW47]

My main issue is if the added comfort of the Morpheus compensates for the smaller fov, as far as I know the XWAs have quite tight eye relief and in my scope a CC would be mandatory. On the other side, does the 100 fov make up for the extra hassle of a CC and tighter ER? I guess the discussion is about comfort vs fov.
Could the eye relief of the Morpheus be “too long”?

A 76° fov is no slouch, I was not too fond of my 82° and 100° eyepieces, they are long gone. I just didn't like the amount of head swiveling to get it all in and I found the outer limits a distorted sensation / feeling. But maybe you will have to try the wider fov to know, have you experienced them, can you borrow a couple if not.

[LDW47]

I will say I use my Morpheus with various size refractors from 60mm to 5", I sold all my dobs (5) long ago.

[25585]

 Will people PLEASE just use the focal lengths that Baader puts on their eyepieces!!! 

[TayM57]

 Will people PLEASE just use the focal lengths that Baader puts on their eyepieces!!! 

I like my 8.9mm Morpheus and 12.4mm Morpheus. What are you talking about? Not the Radians again I hope.

[Jon Isaacs]

 Will people PLEASE just use the focal lengths that Baader puts on their eyepieces!!! 

 

I would like to use the eyepiece labeled as 4.5mm as a 4.5 mm but it seems I can't because it's actually a 4.8 mm.  

 

In this thread, I'm writing the actual focal lengths so I can remember them. They're easy enough to translate. 

 

Jon

[Neanderthal]

 Will people PLEASE just use the focal lengths that Baader puts on their eyepieces!!! 

 

I use my 3.5mm and 2.5mm exit pupil Morphii more than the 1.8mm and 1.3mm exit pupil Morphii.  

[Starman1]

 Will people PLEASE just use the focal lengths that Baader puts on their eyepieces!!! 

Richard, I hear your words.

And, if the actual focal length differs from the claim by 0.1mm or less, that's great advice.

Chances are, that applies to LOTS of eyepieces.

But what if the actual FL differs from the claim by 0.2mm (6.5mm Morph) or 0.3mm (17.5mm, 4.5mm Morphs)?

 

If it's a low power, who cares, right?  17.2mm and 17.5mm differ in my scope by only 2x.  That will make no difference at all.

But 4.5mm and 4.8mm differ by 26x, and that could influence whether seeing is OK or somewhat mediocre; and what details may or may not be seen in a small object.

Now, I certainly wouldn't have two eyepieces in my kit that are only 26x apart, but you get the point: the shorter the focal length, the more important accuracy in FL is.

And the focal length of my dob is still shorter than an 8" SCT.

Edited by Starman1, 16 March 2025 - 02:11 PM.

[Starman1]

On another point, different measurers get different result, too.

XWAs vary:

The 20mm has been measured at 20-20.3mm

The 13mm has been measured at 13.1-13.5mm

The 9mm has been measured at 8.8mm

The 5mm has been measured at 4.7-4.9mm

The 3.5mm has been measured at 3.4-3.6mm

Whose measurements do we trust?

[Jon Isaacs]

On another point, different measurers get different result, too.

XWAs vary:

The 20mm has been measured at 20-20.3mm

The 13mm has been measured at 13.1-13.5mm

The 9mm has been measured at 8.8mm

The 5mm has been measured at 4.7-4.9mm

The 3.5mm has been measured at 3.4-3.6mm

Whose measurements do we trust?

 

For me, the problem is that I already need an eyepiece with a shorter focal length than the 4.5-4.8mm Morpheus.. 

 

Astro-Tech sells the shorter focal length XWA's as 4.8mm and 3.5mm.. Looks good to me.  

 

Jon

[PKDfan]

For me, the problem is that I already need an eyepiece with a shorter focal length than the 4.5-4.8mm Morpheus..

Astro-Tech sells the shorter focal length XWA's as 4.8mm and 3.5mm.. Looks good to me.

Jon

Hey Jon !

You've got GSO great 2X ED Barlow and the 6.5Morpheus so put them together and you'll enjoy the super crisp 3.35mm Morpheus view.

Its a really wonderful combination.


Lance
CSS

[Jon Isaacs]

Hey Jon !

You've got GSO great 2X ED Barlow and the 6.5Morpheus so put them together and you'll enjoy the super crisp 3.35mm Morpheus view.

Its a really wonderful combination.


Lance
CSS

 

The problem is, I'm looking to use a 2X Barlow with a 3.5 mm eyepiece the way I can with the 3.5 mm Nagler (and the 3.5 mm XWA).

 

I do use them with my 1.25 inch 2X TeleVue Barlow. A 3x TV Barlow could do the trick but I do like having a 3.5 mm eyepiece for high powers on DSOs. The 4.8 mm effective focal length is limiting and is more an issue with my smaller scopes. With the NP-101, it's only 112 x.

 

Jon

[PKDfan]

The problem is, I'm looking to use a 2X Barlow with a 3.5 mm eyepiece the way I can with the 3.5 mm Nagler (and the 3.5 mm XWA).

I do use them with my 1.25 inch 2X TeleVue Barlow. A 3x TV Barlow could do the trick but I do like having a 3.5 mm eyepiece for high powers on DSOs. The 4.8 mm effective focal length is limiting and is more an issue with my smaller scopes. With the NP-101, it's only 112 x.

Jon

It's not clear to me, sorry.

So you've tried the 6.5M + 2X GSO Barlow specifically then ? It has to be the GSO Barlow Jon as that and the 6.5mm gave me 270X on Mars and blown away is an understatement.

I don't know if those other Barlows can do the same optical magic. Really special view -of course near perfect skies helps !


Out of the 3.5XWA & T6 Nagler 3.5mm which do you prefer Jon ? Aside from the AFOV difference ?

I briefly tried the T6 and thought it excellent so was curious on your take. Thanks !


CSS
Lance

[Jon Isaacs]

To answer your question:

 

For close double stars, 0.5" - 0.8", I will use around 800x in my 10 inch Dob.  That is the 3.5 mm Nagler with a Paracorr 2 and a 2x TeleVue Barlow.  

 

I have used the 2x GSO Barlow with the 6.5 Morpheus, it's OK. 

 

To split the close doubles, one needs very stable seeing.  As Roland Christen has said, the further south you live, the larger the aperture scope you are able to use.  

 

https://www.cloudyni...-telescope-r402

 

I prefer the 3.5 mm Nagler for planetary and double stars, the 3.5mm XWA for deep sky.  

 

Jon

[PKDfan]

To answer your question:

For close double stars, 0.5" - 0.8", I will use around 800x in my 10 inch Dob. That is the 3.5 mm Nagler with a Paracorr 2 and a 2x TeleVue Barlow.

I have used the 2x GSO Barlow with the 6.5 Morpheus, it's OK.

To split the close doubles, one needs very stable seeing. As Roland Christen has said, the further south you live, the larger the aperture scope you are able to use.

https://www.cloudyni...-telescope-r402

I prefer the 3.5 mm Nagler for planetary and double stars, the 3.5mm XWA for deep sky.

Jon

Thanks Jon !

I suspected as much with my last question.

Lol 'its okay'. Shows how each of our brain stems process the same visual stimulus uniquely.

I guess you don't have Baader zoom or else you could try extending and highly amplifying that eyepiece getting to 4X plus rather than 2X with that Barlow.


And lastly my seeing isn't anywhere close to exceptional (Ha!) but luckily i still get enough quality nites (lastyear!) of 1 arcsecond seeing or better.

Its slow undulating waves of seeing rather than mixed turbulence and that makes it somewhat better. Occassionally its perfectly still and with usually ultra clear praire skies makes viewing worthwhile amid the many less than memorable nites.

I'd Love your seeing Jon but on the contrary of using larger apertures my exceptional optics with better conditions would be optimized so much more often and then i can Really plumb my 100ED's high resolution depths to its full ability.

Let it run free.

I would love for you to take a traipse for awhile through the garden of one my high Strehlers Jon, perhaps open your eye to another level of optical fidelity that your not really accustomed to.

Shake up this notion slightly of the bigger always better myth.

One day maybe Jon !!


CSS
Lance

Edited by PKDfan, 17 March 2025 - 02:04 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

I guess you don't have Baader zoom or else you could try extending and highly amplifying that eyepiece getting to 4X plus rather than 2X with that Barlow.

 

 

I do have a Baader zoom but I loaned it to a friend in 2021 and I don't miss it.

 

 

 

I would love for you to take a traipse for awhile through the garden of one my high Strehlers Jon, perhaps open your eye to another level of optical fidelity that your not really accustomed to.

Shake up this notion slightly of the bigger always better myth.

 

Such posturing is unnecessary. I'm quite familiar with high quality optics.  Take your cue from Roland Christen who is the master of high strehl optics.. 

 

"Whatever system you choose, you might want to consider your local viewing conditions. For planetary, light pollution has zero effect, so you can observe right from your backyard in a downtown area. The most important thing is the stability of the air above. The better your seeing i.e. steadiness of the image, the larger the instrument I would install. The farther south you live, the larger the scope that will be most effective. If you can only afford a 6"or 7" instrument, don't despair that you will not see anything."

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 17 March 2025 - 03:57 PM.

[PKDfan]

I do have a Baader zoom but I loaned it to a friend in 2021 and I don't miss it.


Such posturing is unnecessary. I'm quite familiar with high quality optics. Take your cue from Roland Christen who is the master of high strehl optics..

"Whatever system you choose, you might want to consider your local viewing conditions. For planetary, light pollution has zero effect, so you can observe right from your backyard in a downtown area. The most important thing is the stability of the air above. The better your seeing i.e. steadiness of the image, the larger the instrument I would install. The farther south you live, the larger the scope that will be most effective. If you can only afford a 6"or 7" instrument, don't despair that you will not see anything."

Jon

Oh ok. Thats a real solid you did there Jon ! One of quite a few !!
Kudos !


But i don't think you heard me lol even if i had a 100K$ to drop on a large scope I Don't Want It.

I got REAL Lucky Jon.



Clearest Steady Skies
Lance

[LDW47]

With some you will learn you can never win, ever !  Thats an old saying from my old grandmother, nothing has changed. Ask Ed T, eh.

[25585]

My best Barlow is a Zeiss Abbe 2x, it really beats all else, even the Baader VIP, which is very good. I have a Takahashi Irtho Barlow as well, but still undecided on it so far. The 4.5 Morpheus 2x'd gives me 2.25mm effectively, a bit shorter than my Vixen LV. 

[Dr Arnheim]

I use the 4.5mm, 6.5.mm, 12.5mm and 17.5mm Morpheus eyepieces in my Binotron 27 and my Borg 107FL double refractor and recently bought two 3.5mm XWAs. I really love the XWA and on planets and deep sky objects the image looked (for me) every bit as good as in the Morpheus just with a much bigger apparent field of view. So I have ordered the 9mm and 20mm XWAs as well.

However, yesterday I was spending a few hours on double stars and was astonished that I could split double stars equally well with the XWA 3.5mm and the Morpheus 4.5mm, that made me think that the Morpheus are optically better. Is that a fair valuation or could this result due to other factors like f.i. seeing (that means that the seeing was not good enough that the extra magnification would have added resolution)?

Baader should really release a Morpheus 3.5mm or even better 3mm.

Edited by Dr Arnheim, 20 March 2025 - 06:21 AM.

[Starman1]

I use the 4.5mm, 6.5.mm, 12.5mm and 17.5mm Morpheus eyepieces in my Binotron 27 and my Borg 107FL double refractor and recently bought two 3.5mm XWAs. I really love the XWA and on planets and deep sky objects the image looked (for me) every bit as good as in the Morpheus just with a much bigger apparent field of view. So I have ordered the 9mm and 20mm XWAs as well.

However, yesterday I was spending a few hours on double stars and was astonished that I could split double stars equally well with the XWA 3.5mm and the Morpheus 4.5mm, that made me think that the Morpheus are optically better. Is that a fair valuation or could this result due to other factors like f.i. seeing (that means that the seeing was not good enough that the extra magnification would have added resolution)?

Baader should really release a Morpheus 3.5mm or even better 3mm.

Well, the Morpheus 4.5mm (actually 4.8mm) is an unusually sharp eyepiece (very small spot size), from edge to edge,

while the 3.5mm XWA is only that sharp in the center 1/3 of the field.  In a binoviewer, that's about the amount of field you use anyway.

Were you to compare them with Cyclops use, you'd rate the outer 50% of the field a lot better in the Morpheus.

 

Ernest's tests of the series shows the 3.5mm the least sharp of all the XWA focal lengths.