Toucam, new eyepieces, money no object?? - Page 2

davidpretorius · #21 08-10-2005, 11:21 AM

thanks rob again,

i don't care what they look like, it is as you say "proof in the pudding"!

Pentax are on the list for star camp to have a look at.

#22 08-10-2005, 11:28 AM

Mike,

I agree the 14mm does get a lil soft EFOV, but then again of the Naglers I've tried I have yet to see tact sharp edge to edge FOV

Maybe considering it's the weekend for it, we should change this debate to Ford V Holden lol

regards, CS

gbeal · #23 08-10-2005, 11:30 AM

While not exactly doubting your wisdom Rob, I would certainly agree that someone contemplating should compare.
I have been guilty of not having tried the Pentax line, having stuck with the Naglers and Panoptics for the DSO eyepieces. I recently went from the 20/T5 to a 22/T4, and still recall the WOW of the first look. I have used Pentax in the early SLR's, and still have a pair of 7x35 Pentax bino's, if that counts.
Warm and fuzzy is indeed worth a little, and I don't normally rush to place any credence on "reviews" that suggest the later Naglers are any better or worse. I have heard and read simialr about the newest Pentax's.
What I would like is on the next major star party you guys are having for someone to subjectively compare. That would be a good read.

#24 08-10-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

Both EP's are comfortable to use, no blackouts or kidney beaning in either of them, obviously the Pentax has more ER which is a plus if you wear glasses (I don't).

I dont wear glasses either, still I find the XW's more comfortable.

me personally anyways

regards,CS

gbeal · #25 08-10-2005, 11:40 AM

Good move, Ford Vs Holden. Go Murph.

#26 08-10-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbeal

I don't normally rush to place any credence on "reviews" that suggest the later Naglers are any better or worse. I have heard and read simialr about the newest Pentax's..

That's the thing about reviews, it could be that the reviewer has been a
Nagler follower or Pentax follower either way you couldn't call it subjective.
Like you, I like to read the reviews but place very lil credence on them. I
seen one reviewer on a yahoo group say the 10mm XW had field curverture
in the outer 20%, anyone who own a 10mm XW will know that is not true.
Yet he had everyone believing that and I was the bad guy for saying different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbeal

What I would like is on the next major star party you guys are having for someone to subjectively compare. That would be a good read.

You would need someone with good experience and has never used either, that maybe a lil hard to find.

regards,CS

#27 08-10-2005, 11:53 AM

I'll go Murph too! only because he's a Kiwi lol, mind you does he drive a Ford? hmmm I could be torn here lol

regards,CS

gbeal · #28 08-10-2005, 12:16 PM

Murph is the pride of the land at present, and in a way it would be really great to see him grab another win, making three in a row.
I am out of the Nagler/Pentax discussion. BUT if you can sort a compare it would be great.
Gary

#29 08-10-2005, 12:31 PM

I think he has just posted fastest time, Although I didn't quite catch it so dont quote me.

lol maybe Mike should post under the guidelines, No talk about Politics, Religion, bad mouthing & Pentax v's Nagler posts lol, I've done a shoot out between 14mm XW and 13mm t6 at Astrofest QLD. My conclusion was different from Mikes.

I'm pretty proud of the All Blacks this year too!!

regards,CS

Starkler (Geoff) · #30 08-10-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrekcor

I've done a shoot out between 14mm XW and 13mm t6 at Astrofest QLD. My conclusion was different from Mikes.

Yep its all personal preferences . Different people apply different weighting to the various eyepiece attributes as its often not a case of comparing apples to apples.

#31 08-10-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrekcor

I think he has just posted fastest time, Although I didn't quite catch it so dont quote me.

Oooop's I think that was yesterday

regards,CS

iceman (Mike) · #32 08-10-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

What I would like is on the next major star party you guys are having for someone to subjectively compare. That would be a good read.

You would need someone with good experience and has never used either, that maybe a lil hard to find.

That's the review i'm doing with John B, I hadn't used either before so had no bias from me. Hopefully it will be complete in a week or so, but need to do some moon testing.

Obviously I don't have years of experience, but I'm a fast learner and I had John B there with me so we could bounce our thoughts off each other.

#33 08-10-2005, 04:59 PM

Mike,

With all those trips up to Kulnura with John, Louie and Houghy you never got to look through either of the naglers or XW???? I'm surprised.

I think you could be doing this hobby for 70 years mate and still be just a learner lol, I mean there is alot to learn, and it depends on what direction you want to take.

However the weather here is building into a huge storm, winds up int he 90-100kms and the bushfire burning to the west last night has flared up this morning fanned by these winds. visibility here is down to about 200m by smoke, May have to look at vacating the property as we're in the firing line.

regards,CS

beren · #34 09-10-2005, 03:21 PM

Thanks for the info Rob good to hear a different call/perspective

asimov (John) · #35 09-10-2005, 03:45 PM

I may be overthinking all this possibly: What about the fact that when we get 'old' most of us end up wearing some kind of eye correction. Is it then time to sell that nagler & buy a pentax cos' they have more ER?

beren · #36 09-10-2005, 04:01 PM

I think 15mm ER is quoted as the optimum shortest length for eyeglass users, with the type6 naglers they all have 12mm ER so it could be borderline and something to consider , with my 9mm type6 to take in the full field i nearly have to press my eye against the objective. I would like to try the 16mm tpye 6 one day and see how that goes with 10mm ER