23 replies to this topic

[eyeoftexas]

Baader has had multiple generations of their Hyperion Zoom eyepieces.  I’m curious why they have not produced a “Morpheus” zoom, based on their Morpheus eyepiece line.  Those seem to get lots of positive reviews.

[sevenofnine]

My guess is that R&D is too expensive for the small number of customers willing to pay $800 or so for an eyepiece   

Edited by sevenofnine, 15 March 2025 - 01:34 PM.

[DRodrigues]

My guess is that R&D is too expensive for the small number of customers willing to pay $800 or so for an eyepiece   

Isn't necessary to be so high - see the prices of the APM or the SVBony SuperZooms.

The first version of the Baader zoom was a "clone" of the Zeiss zoom. 

Meanwhile, it seems that APM "cloned" the Meopta widezoom and the SVBony "cloned" the Kowa widezoom.

There is no other good widezoom to clone - the Leica is only a 2x zoom, so surpassed by the 2.4x Kowa / SVBony...
 

[LDW47]

Baader has had multiple generations of their Hyperion Zoom eyepieces.  I’m curious why they have not produced a “Morpheus” zoom, based on their Morpheus eyepiece line.  Those seem to get lots of positive reviews.

What do you think you would gain, what would be different ?

[scotsman328i]

Yeah, I would like to think they could redesign the zoom and extend the FOV larger than the ‘Hyperion’ zoom to make perhaps a Baader Morpheus zoom, but I don’t think they can change the design to extend the FOV out past the lowest power reaches in the zoom. They all seem to shrink FOV the lower the power they go.

Edited by scotsman328i, 15 March 2025 - 02:18 PM.

[Thomas Marshall]

I don't know, - but my Hyperion MK -IV 8-24 zoom seems better optically than the fixed Hyperion eyepieces I tried in my scopes.

[areyoukiddingme]

I think it's simple profitability. Selling people several fixed focal lengths is going to produce more income than one eyepiece that can replace 3-4, or even more with a barlow.

 

For it to make sense, you'd need to be able make a good margin on the zoom. I'd think the Baader zoom works out for that reason, because it must surely cost them sales on hyperions, and possibly other offerings.

[LDW47]

Yeah, I would like to think they could redesign the zoom and extend the FOV larger than the ‘Hyperion’ zoom to make perhaps a Baader Morpheus zoom, but I don’t think they can change the design to extend the FOV out past the lowest power reaches in the zoom. They all seem to shrink FOV the lower the power they go.

This was discussed thoroughly some years ago, to get a wider field of view you wouldn't like the cost and especially the huge size of a zoom like that, if even possible. The talk went back and forth for quite a while.

[LDW47]

I think it's simple profitability. Selling people several fixed focal lengths is going to produce more income than one eyepiece that can replace 3-4, or even more with a barlow.

 

For it to make sense, you'd need to be able make a good margin on the zoom. I'd think the Baader zoom works out for that reason, because it must surely cost them sales on hyperions, and possibly other offerings.

Baader zoom or not, I owned one, they will never compare to the individual Hyperions of which I also had a set. I now have the Morpheus after quickly selling the Hyperions, they are a level or two above.

[LDW47]

I don't know, - but my Hyperion MK -IV 8-24 zoom seems better optically than the fixed Hyperion eyepieces I tried in my scopes.

Not from my experience there is just no way but to each his own experiences, eh.

[sevenofnine]

Baader Morpheus is in the premium category so a zoom would have to compete optically and mechanically in that stratosphere, IMO. That would make it very pricey. Like the Leica 

[PKDfan]

I used the Mark IV and a 2X Barlow to reach the same power as my 6.5Morpheus and it was a much different AFOV. Much whiter and not quite as crisp sharpness wise but the significantly different view tint triumphed over Morpheus, on Mondays- Tuesdays i like the Morph.

Barlowing cleans up the zoom well but for discrete details i still liked Morpheus more.

Best of both worlds really.

The Mark III had worse correction than Mark IV so the V edition i'd like to see a better polish and smaller spotsizes slimmed even further.

Eye relief is good no changes there.
Coatings ditto.

And while we're at it

give HONEST FOCAL LENGTHS.

I gotta say;

Morpheus and Mars is a match made in heaven.




CSS
Lance

[Rustler46]

Yeah, I would like to think they could redesign the zoom and extend the FOV larger than the ‘Hyperion’ zoom to make perhaps a Baader Morpheus zoom, but I don’t think they can change the design to extend the FOV out past the lowest power reaches in the zoom. They all seem to shrink FOV the lower the power they go.

All except the APM SuperZoom that is. It keeps a constant 65° AFOV through out the zoom range. Even though its zoom range is "only" 2X, at the lowest power it has a wider true FOV than the Baader 3X zoom. And the APM is at a higher power than the Baader zoom at the wide end. Something to consider when comparing modes zoom eyepieces.

 

Russ

Edited by Rustler46, 15 March 2025 - 02:41 PM.

[SeattleScott]

It’s one thing to have constant 65 AFOV. A constant 76 would be a different story. I mean , the Superzoom is big and expensive enough. Also, Ernest’s bench tests show the edge correction doesn’t compete with the fixed Morpheus eyepieces at F4. If a zoom was intended to equal Morpheus AFOV and optical quality, it would be ridiculously big, heavy and expensive. I agree, $800 seems like a reasonable target price. Likely not many buyers.

The Superzoom is $400, right? The abberation spot size at F4 above 10mm setting is 24-33. At ~65 AFOV. The Morpheus are 6-16 spot size (excluding the 14 that most skip) at around 76 AFOV. The fixed Morpheus are simply in a little different league. You would probably need to double the cost (and maybe size) of the Superzoom to compete with Morpheus.

Edited by SeattleScott, 15 March 2025 - 03:26 PM.

[LDW47]

Baader Morpheus is in the premium category so a zoom would have to compete optically and mechanically in that stratosphere, IMO. That would make it very pricey. Like the Leica 

Thats kind of what I was getting at without just saying it.

[scotsman328i]

It’s one thing to have constant 65 AFOV. A constant 76 would be a different story. I mean , the Superzoom is big and expensive enough. Also, Ernest’s bench tests show the edge correction doesn’t compete with the fixed Morpheus eyepieces at F4. If a zoom was intended to equal Morpheus AFOV and optical quality, it would be ridiculously big, heavy and expensive. I agree, $800 seems like a reasonable target price. Likely not many buyers.

The Superzoom is $400, right? The abberation spot size at F4 above 10mm setting is 24-33. At ~65 AFOV. The Morpheus are 6-16 spot size (excluding the 14 that most skip) at around 76 AFOV. The fixed Morpheus are simply in a little different league. You would probably need to double the cost (and maybe size) of the Superzoom to compete with Morpheus.

I know, right? I was thinking between price point to redesign and put into production such a piece would either be impossible in a 1.25” format or outrageously expensive.

[PKDfan]

If Baader realizes the strength of its zoom in the marketplace and i was in head of product development i'd do what i suggested earlier--improve blackening, polish, & reduce spotsizes so its actually diffraction limited throughout its range & Change the focal lengths to what they really are.

Baader is so close to having one of the worlds finest zooms move into the the actual best. If they could do it with only a slight increase in cost so be it, say 15% for the extra polish time most could probably accept that IMO.


I Love my zoom. Its a totally invaluable tool in my eyepiece arsenal.




CSS
Lance

[Jon Isaacs]

It’s one thing to have constant 65 AFOV. A constant 76 would be a different story. I mean , the Superzoom is big and expensive enough. Also, Ernest’s bench tests show the edge correction doesn’t compete with the fixed Morpheus eyepieces at F4. If a zoom was intended to equal Morpheus AFOV and optical quality, it would be ridiculously big, heavy and expensive. I agree, $800 seems like a reasonable target price. Likely not many buyers.

The Superzoom is $400, right? The abberation spot size at F4 above 10mm setting is 24-33. At ~65 AFOV. The Morpheus are 6-16 spot size (excluding the 14 that most skip) at around 76 AFOV. The fixed Morpheus are simply in a little different league. You would probably need to double the cost (and maybe size) of the Superzoom to compete with Morpheus.

 

If anyone remembers  when the APM zoom was introduced, it was supposed to 75 degrees with a constant AFoV.   It turned out to be 66 degree which was quite a disappointment.

 

Jon

[SeattleScott]

If Baader realizes the strength of its zoom in the marketplace and i was in head of product development i'd do what i suggested earlier--improve blackening, polish, & reduce spotsizes so its actually diffraction limited throughout its range & Change the focal lengths to what they really are.

Baader is so close to having one of the worlds finest zooms move into the the actual best. If they could do it with only a slight increase in cost so be it, say 15% for the extra polish time most could probably accept that IMO.


I Love my zoom. Its a totally invaluable tool in my eyepiece arsenal.




CSS
Lance

The spot sizes on the BHZ are actually quite good for a zoom. Generally somewhere between Delite and AT UWA scores. Which is an accomplishment, considering the BHZ is a fairly wide AFOV zoom.

An interesting thing I notice is Ernest’s spot sizes for the APM Superzoom, BHZ3 and BHZ4 are inversely related. As the edge gets better, the center gets worse. It might be with a zoom that it isn’t really possible to optimize edge correction and central contrast at the same time.

Blackening can always be problematic with zooms because of internal moving parts. Could the BHZ be improved? Idk.

Better polish could probably help contrast.

[PKDfan]

The spot sizes on the BHZ are actually quite good for a zoom. Generally somewhere between Delite and AT UWA scores. Which is an accomplishment, considering the BHZ is a fairly wide AFOV zoom.

An interesting thing I notice is Ernest’s spot sizes for the APM Superzoom, BHZ3 and BHZ4 are inversely related. As the edge gets better, the center gets worse. It might be with a zoom that it isn’t really possible to optimize edge correction and central contrast at the same time.

Blackening can always be problematic with zooms because of internal moving parts. Could the BHZ be improved? Idk.

Better polish could probably help contrast.

You might be right Scott.

The improvement in spot size from the Mark III was fairly dramatic so another small step forward would impress and maybe all it needs is longer on the polishing spindle.

Its the optimization of the small things adding up that makes the overall experience better.

Cheers !


Lance
CSS

[PJBilotta]

What I'd really love for them to produce is a high quality 1.5-3x variable "zoom" Barlow. That's essentially what a Zoom is - an integrated eyepiece and moving Smythe lens.

Paired with a 17.5 Morph, Delos or Nikon SW, you'd have a full range of mags with a single eyepiece and a twistable "zoom" Barlow.

[eyeoftexas]

What I'd really love for them to produce is a high quality 1.5-3x variable "zoom" Barlow. That's essentially what a Zoom is - an integrated eyepiece and moving Smythe lens.

Paired with a 17.5 Morph, Delos or Nikon SW, you'd have a full range of mags with a single eyepiece and a twistable "zoom" Barlow.

Antares sells a 1.5x-2.5x variable Barlow that might meet your needs:

 

https://antares.spac...ariable-15x-25x

[Exnihilo]

I have a MK-IV, but tend to only use it with my smallest refractor for birding.  Does a good job!  At night I like my Morphs.

[PKDfan]

I have a MK-IV, but tend to only use it with my smallest refractor for birding. Does a good job! At night I like my Morphs.

Yes i like it for that too Exnihilo its a match made in heaven one easy to move scope & one eyepiece for the birds !!

I use it for better power reach with the head of my 2X 2" ED Barlow with its screw on skirt and along with extra power it also has a bit better pop with the slower feed & despite three extra pieces of glass sharpness & contrast is slightly Improved.

Where did this Barlow myth of degradation come from ?


CSS
Lance