#1  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:00 AM
Dober (Steve)
Registered User

Dober is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Delaney's Creek Qld Australia
Posts: 8
14mm Morpheus reviews

Hi,

Has anyone had any experience with the 14mm Morpheus, or the 9mm and 6.5 for that matter.

I have a f6 8" reflector (driven) and a 102 skywatcher refractor f10.

Any comments on their performance for these scopes.

Thanks

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:13 AM
anj026's Avatar
anj026
Plyscope

anj026 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 453
https://www.cloudynights.com/article...morpheus-r3003

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:44 AM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,217
I considered buying the 14mm but was put off by reports of field curvature. If you don't mind that then it's good.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:11 PM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,629
Morton,

Where did you read about field curvature with these, in particular the 14mm?

In the review provided by Andy, Bill sees no field curvature with any of the scopes he tested these EPs in, which include an f/4.7 Newt, a few f/7-ish apo refractors and an SCT (very comprehensive as all these scope designs have different demands on EPs). And he paid particular attention to the 14mm exactly because of its "apparent reputation", and found no such issue.

Bill is one of the very few people who actually tests EPs in different types of scope for reviewing precisely because of the different scope designs having different demands on EPs.

The one scope type he didn't try was a fast frac. Maybe this is where some field curvature, but unreasonable to damn an EP if it may fall short in one scope type but fine in others. Very, very few EPs perform well in all scope types.

Steve, great that you mentioned the scopes you will be using the EPs in! In the scopes you list, Bill's review is positive about these. And in your f/6 Newt, coma will not be an issue that needs a coma corrector either.

Alex.

PS, great use of your signature, Morton!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:23 PM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,217
Hi Alex,

There some slight negatives about off axis performance in a Newt without Paracorr in Bill Paolini's review (excerpt below) but there are more comments on CN. Overall however I may have exaggerated the issue!


3.e. OFF-AXIS PERFORMANCE (Dob without Paracorr)

As many observers choose to not use a coma correcting device in their fast Dobs, I also experimented with the behavior of the Baader Morpheus compared to the Pentax XWs in this regard. Without a coma corrector, such as the Tele Vue Paracorr, you can expect coma from a fast telescope's mirror to begin impacting star points at about 50% of the way from center in the AFOV, especially for longer focal length eyepieces. But for shorter focal length eyepieces, sometimes you can get away with fairly good performance to the edge if your Dob is not much faster than f/4.5. Without the coma correcting Paracorr in the XT10, all the Morpheus eyepieces behaved the same as far as star points. When brighter stars were moved further into the coma field of the Dob's mirror they were overwhelmed with coma as the primary aberration. Neither noticeable field curvature or astigmatism could be seen or separated from the coma. For these tests of star point behavior without a coma corrector I used bright magnitude zero Arcturus.


Moving from the clinical star point test to some real observations, I started with the Mizar complex of bright stars. Using the Morpheus 14mm I felt that the resulting true field of view (TFOV) was large enough using the longer 14mm eyepiece that the far off-axis of the eyepiece was intruding into a rather severe portion of the XT10's coma field. As a result I did not like the appearance of these bright stars in the off-axis of either the 14mm or 12.5mm Morpheus on this Mizar grouping. However, in the shorter 9mm, 6.5mm, and 4.5mm Morpheus focal lengths I felt observing the bright stars in the Mizar complex was entirely acceptable without a coma corrector. Turning to M39, which has fairly bright components, again I did not like the 14mm but this time I felt that the 12.5mm Morpheus was providing a fairly good view without Paracorr. And of course, without Paracorr all the shorter Morpheus focal lengths were fine as well on the field of view of bright stars around Mizar. When turning to the fainter stars like in the open cluster M11, I found that even the 14mm Morpheus provided a great view for this celestial object without Paracorr as long as I did not position the cluster it right at the field stop. Overall, without a coma corrector in a fast Dob, I felt the 12.5mm and shorter Morpheus focal lengths demonstrated that they could provide very nice views.

Last edited by MortonH; 06-09-2019 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:35 PM
DeWynter's Avatar
DeWynter (ILYA)
Registered User

DeWynter is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 70
I just recently did a research for 12mm - 18mm eyepieces with 68 - 82 degrees FOV for myself and according to a few reputable reviews, including one made on an optical bench at an optical R&D facility rather than just a scope, the 12.5mm and 14mm Morpheus are the worst in the line in terms of field curvature and aberrations even in 1:10 scopes.

On the other side Morpheus 4.5mm, 6.5mm and 9mm are absolutely fantastic even in 1:4 scopes!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:41 PM
Dober (Steve)
Registered User

Dober is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Delaney's Creek Qld Australia
Posts: 8
14mm 9mm & 6.5 Morpheus reviews

Thanks Gents,

I have seen a few reviews on line (the link provided included) but as usual they vary greatly from all good to terrible mainly the 14M. I thought some from this forum may have an opinion of them. To be honest I was just curious about the 14m after reading some reviews but I was mainly looking for something like the 9 or the 6.5.

Thanks for any advice forthcoming.

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:06 PM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,629
Morton, yes, I read that abput the 14mm without the coma corrector. Really nothing of a big deal as the edge is not somewhere where anyone dors any serious observing at. And in Steve's f/6 Newt any issues greatly diminish.

I guess Bill could also expand his review scopes to include the ubiquitous 8" f/6 dob/Newt. Makes a significant difference.

Steve, just be careful when reading reviews. Most people don't understand optics and think a scope, is a scope, is a scope, and an eyepiece, is an eyepiece, is an eyepiece... Things are not that simple. Newts and fracs/SCTs/Maks are very different beasts, and very, very few EPs perform well in all scope types, and from any given line of EPs, performance WILL vary. Many people will dismiss an entire line of EPs based on one single focal length used in one scope type, when because of the comex nature of contemporary EP design, from a given line of EPs that are "considered" as poor in Newts, there may be one or two focal lengths from thst line that actually perform really well in all scope types. But because someone doesn't understand optics had a poor experience with one EP, they then go on to dismiss the whole line even though it could actually be fantastic in fracs. Read what scope/scopes people use in their reviews, and consider what is written in those reviews for the scopes YOU have, not base your purchasing decisions on other people's misguided but well intentioned opinions.

Another EP you might like to look for is the Vixen LVW 13mm - really, really good in Newts and fracs. Only available second hand these days. I had one for many years and was the one EP I MOST used.

Alex.

Last edited by mental4astro; 06-09-2019 at 03:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:18 PM
GUS.K's Avatar
GUS.K (Ivan)
Registered User

GUS.K is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Medlow Bath
Posts: 359
I bought the 9mm a few months back and have no issues with it. The view feels bigger than the 76 degree, very immersive view.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:42 PM
Dober (Steve)
Registered User

Dober is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Delaney's Creek Qld Australia
Posts: 8
14mm 9mm & 6.5 Morpheus reviews

Thank you all for your comments,

I have been into this hobby for a short while but so far have found with forum reviews that its not easy to find comments on specific eyepieces for instance, used or tested on scopes that match that of the researcher.

As Alex suggested not all eyepieces of which ever FL will produce the best view in all scopes and not all reviewers have the a number of eyepieces at their disposal in similar focal lengths, fields of view etc to compare side by side in their own scopes, let alone the many and varied scopes out there and owned by those who seek the review on particular equipment.

One can be lucky sometimes and find the right review put up by someone with enough experience to provide an accurate appraisal. I have not got that experience yet so am reliant on those well rounded reviews to guide my decisions.

I want to get the best out of my scope so have invested in a couple of Tevevue pieces which I really like but am open minded in terms of eyepiece lines. Hence the Morpheus inquiry.

I have ordered a 9mm Morpheus and as Gus K and others have commented they are said to have an immersive view, I hope that's the impression I get when mine turns up. The closest I have to it now is a 11mm Nagler so should be an interesting comparison in terms of sharpness and feel.

Thanks Steve
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:20 PM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,232
Morpheus are very good eyepieces with a wide field and long eye relief. The 14 is the least good at the edge but still a decent eyepiece.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13-09-2019, 04:09 AM
Don Pensack's Avatar
Don Pensack
Registered User

Don Pensack is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 379
As a point of view, why do reviewers want to evaluate the outer field of ultrawide eyepieces in a fast scope (defined as f/5 or faster) without coma correction?

Coma will obscure whatever correction is or isn't there.

Fast scopes need to have a coma corrector if the reviewer cares about the star images in the outer field.
Evaluating an eyepiece in a fast scope without a coma corrector is like a podiatrist examining your feet when you have sox on.

Better to evaluate what the eyepiece does when coma is eliminated.
That would better tell you how the eyepiece will perform in a scope that has no coma and tell you more about the inherent correction of the eyepiece in the outer field.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13-09-2019, 02:49 PM
Dober (Steve)
Registered User

Dober is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Delaney's Creek Qld Australia
Posts: 8
14mm 9mm & 6.5 Morpheus reviews

With regards to Don's comments,

I would agree and suspect that it is difficult and possibly a little unfair to comment on performance without ideal test parameters in place but having said that everyone is entitled to make comment.

Don raised the example of a Podiatrist, me I would say hard to judge the performance of motor bike if itís out of tune. So, what does one need to fine tune an optical system.

From my research and limited experience, fast Newts are harder on eyepieces, hence my purchase of the F6 as first my scope. For the time being I wanted to assemble a quality set of eyepieces that will perform well in my scope without pushing either the scope or the eyepiece beyond what could be reasonably expected. That is of course given clean mirrors, correct collimation, good seeing and so on.

Later when I upgrade to a bigger and faster Newt. I expect I may then have to invest in a Paracorr, but having good eyepieces to start with I am hoping thatís all I will need to again get the best from that optical system. If that makes sense.

Maybe one won't be necessary, that would save $$ but having purchased some quality wide field eyepieces I won't hesitate to grab one to have clear observing through the full field.

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 18-09-2019, 06:51 AM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,629
The reason why I want a review of an EP without a coma corrector in place is because it helps me evaluate the design characteristics of a given EP to gauge how well matched it is for a Newtonian.

As an example, take a 13mm Nagler Type 6 & a 14mm Vixen SSW. In an f/4 Newt, the Nagler is just about perfect along the edge. I actually don't need a coma corrector here as the image quality along the edge is so good and I don't do any serious observing along the edge - no one does. But the SSW in a Newt is no where as good, displaying much more significant coma effects and some astigmatism.

Now in my 7" f/15 Intes Mak, the SSW has it all over the Nagler! The roles are reversed. The SSW is sharp across the FOV, and easy on the eye to use, and the astigmatism is gone - a better match with the Mak. Yet the image with the Nagler is not as sharp towards the edge, and I find eye placement is more tricky that with using it in a Newt.

Edge performance, and in particular the aberrations that are seen are indicators to the matching of the EP to the scope being used. If you have any doubts, you need to read the work on EP aberrations here, https://www.telescope-optics.net/eye...rrations_1.htm , which describes how scope design influences eyepiece performance and design.

The eyepieces in my kit I have collected according to how the perform in my various scopes, Newts, SCT's, Maks and refractors. MOST of my eyepieces are used either solely in either Newts (such as the 13mm Nagler) or the other three (such as the 14mm SSW). I have very few EPs that I use in all my scope types. I make my purchase decisions on actual performance, and certainly not on Brand popularity. However I do use other people's reviews on any given EP to help identify those key aberrations that demonstrates that EP's performance for a given scope design. This is why I find Bill's reviews invaluble as he makes a point of trying EPs in different scope designs, not just in one scope and f/ratio.

Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 18-09-2019, 07:16 AM
Don Pensack's Avatar
Don Pensack
Registered User

Don Pensack is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 379
That we all see something different in eyepieces is brought home to me by your post, Alex.
For me, there is so much obnoxious coma in the 13mm T6 at f/5 that I immediately used it with a coma corrector to make it nearly perfect.
At f/4, I woudn't even try to see how it does without a coma corrector since I'd never use it without one at f/5.
And the 14mm SSW, to my eye, has so much spherical aberration of the exit pupil at f/5.75 (coma-corrected f/5) that I cannot even use it. That's an exit pupil of 2.43mm.
In my f/7 scope (exit pupil 2mm) it's still pretty bad.
Perhaps by f/15 (0.93mm exit pupil), that clears up. It's well known that larger exit pupil size makes SAEP less tolerable.

guess the difference in our observing styles is that I would not knowingly use any newtonian scope without a coma corrector, so, for me, I evaluate an eyepiece's performance based on how it works in a newtonian scope WITH a coma corrector. Coma, I can correct, but astigmatism I cannot, so if the eyepiece displays any astigmatism, it goes.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 18-09-2019, 07:53 AM
mental4astro's Avatar
mental4astro (Alexander)
kids+wife+scopes=happyman

mental4astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 4,629
Exactly, Don.

It is very easy to forget not just personal observing styles, but also that the eye is an active element in the optical chain, and as a result WILL bring its own aberrations, not just whatever the scope and EP do.

Astigmatism is one key aberration I use in evaluating an EPs suitability. Newts are especially hard on EPs, and an EP can show astigmatism in a Newt, but not in a refractor. And as you said, astigmatism cannot be corrected for, so for EPs I use in my Newts this is the one aberration I look for. As for other aberrations, this comes down to both personal preference and how your own eyes work.

HOWEVER, some astigmatism does not need to dismiss outright an EP as being useful. If some can be seen along the say the outer 5 to 10% of the FOV, this is not a deal breaker for some people as no one does any serious observing along the edge, and this is perfectly acceptable for many people. To be a stickler for edge to edge performance is more an indicator of personal observing style. This is where much agro lies in the persistence of some sort of holy grail performance and insisting that this is the ONLY thing that matters. Not everyone may be able to afford a particular EP. Not everyone cares for "perfect", but prefer pragmatism. Damned be anyone who judges someone else's personal preferences that don't match their own.

This is one reason why Bill's reviews are so good - he describes what he sees beside certain contemporary standards, but allows the person reading his review to make up their own mind according to the scope/scopes they use.

Alex.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement