REVIEWS, COMPARISONS, AND OBSERVATION REPORTS:
PART II:
If you are still reading, I figure that there is no need to warn you or inform you as to what you are in for. You can always look at the first paragraphs of part one to know why I decided to share this information, as well as my caution to take everything with a grain of salt. For those who like reading about these topics, I hope you enjoy reading more about some of my growing pains. I also cover the low points so that one doesn't get the impression that all my observing sessions go perfectly.
Tip of the day: Rotating an eyepiece in the focuser can sometimes help you to determine if the problems are with the eyepiece or are the fault of the scope.
Basically the theme of this section is my continued discovery and exploration of planetary eyepieces.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 03:44:50
Subject: Don't know what to do.
AFTER MIDNIGHT WITH THE 16 INCH SCOPE:
Well, I was wrong, periodically every half hour or so, I would get what the folks in the local club affectionately call "sucker holes" in the clouds.
Most of my time was spent at 7mm, 267X on Jupiter when the holes and seeing would allow. I have used clouds as a filter on the moon, but I think tonight was the first time for using them as a filter on Jupiter. It was really neat how the clouds brought out the detail in the bands of Jupiter, when they weren't too thick.
I had a 20 minute stretch in which I was able to use the 5mm Takahashi LE with the full 16 inches of aperture, with no problem at 373X. The GRS really is a peach color. In the past, it always looked white or grey. I also had a solid 5 minute stretch in which I was able to use the 5mm LE on the 2X barlow. The seeing wasn't good enough at 747X to keep the moons round and the limb of Jupiter sharp, but there were moments of three or four seconds when the GRS would come jumping out at me along with its companion ovals.
At 5mm, the GRS was solid and crisp, oval, and well delineated. And, it had that peach color. I get browns and reds in the bands, white ovals throughout the bands; but, so far I have not seen a blue oval at anytime.
I have a problem. As far as I know, they don't make a 4mm Tak LE. :-(
2.5mm is a little too much for full aperture, but I really think I could have gotten 4mm to work, if I would have had 4mm to put into the machine.
I wonder if tonight will prove to have been a once in a lifetime event. I wonder if the scope is just plain that good, or if I really lucked out and found myself in the middle of some exceptional seeing. The LE was a winner in either case. I understand the 5mm Tak LE to have 10mm eye relief? If so, 10mm is acceptable.
I didn't try barlowing the 9mm Intes Monocentric today. I tried it a couple of days ago, and I did not like it barlowed at all. It already has a ghost, and it seemed to come apart at the seams when I barlowed it; but, maybe it was due to the seeing and not the eyepiece, I don't know.
Any suggestions of a good 4mm eyepiece with eye relief?
Regarding Saturn: Saturn is lower on the eastern horizon and over 50,000 more homes. I am on the extreme west side of the Salt Lake Valley.
The seeing around 3:00 A.M. was just barely getting good enough with Saturn that I was starting to make out the Cassini division and getting a little surface detail as well. Jupiter was approaching due south at the meridian, a lot less homes and city that direction.
During the 20 minutes heyday, I noticed that I switched from lifting the scope to track Jupiter to lowering the scope as I tracked Jupiter. Jupiter passed the meridian sometime in there as best I can tell.
Saturn was behind the clouds during the 20 minute heyday I had on Jupiter. In the hour or two before, I switched back and forth between Jupiter and Saturn as holes in the clouds would allow.
I sincerely believed I was done at midnight. I didn't know I would go for another four and a half hours. It started to rain at 4:30 A.M. when I was packing in the scope.
I had a lot of fun tonight.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998
Subject: Die Hard -- Not.
I am one who will easily let nights go by around the full moon, even if they are clear and beautiful. If my wife brings home a video, or if they have some interesting news program on TV around full moon, I never stop what I am doing to go out to view.
And, if work has me blitzed, I will let some good nights go by as well. I can safely say that I am not die hard. Before I started taking allergy shots, I usually would get a halo around all bright objects during the summer if I stayed out too long, due to red itch from allergies in the eyes. The allergies would change my vision. Once that happened, or if I was already haloed over before dark, then it was no use to even try to view. I'd have whole weeks go by with my eyes itched shut or with halos around bright objects. The stars would be bright halos of light in the eyepiece, and it wasn't worth it.
I used to be one who would never view in the winter due to the cold and the fire stoves, and I never viewed most of the summer due to allergies and haloes around all the bright stuff. Spring and fall were my observing seasons; and spring was taken up with doing accounting for clients. I'd have lots of days go by without observing. So, until I started taking allergy shots, I always figured that I would never get my money's worth out of a $3000 scope.
If it isn't fun, or if I don't feel like doing it, then I usually don't bother. And I can relate perfectly well to having whole weeks or whole months go by without observing. That's part of the reason why I was more into Amateur Telescope Making the first 7 years I was in the hobby than I was into actually observing. I liked making scopes more than I liked looking through them. That's changed the last year or two. I don't ever want to make another scope. And, I am getting into viewing.
Over the years, thanks to severe allergies, if it weren't for my love of the night sky, I sometimes wonder if I would ever go outside. Over the last year or so, the allergy shots have allowed me to move from my usual half hour observing sessions of two years ago to some successful all nighters this season.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998
Subject: 7mm UO ortho arrived.
The 7mm is quite tight on eye relief. I don't know how it will turn out in actual usage, but it is tight on the shop light. My eyelashes are smashing all over it. However, it seems to have a lot more eye relief than the 8mm Brandon had, so the 7mm UO ortho is a step in the right direction if it proves to be any good image wise. I really liked the Brandon, but I didn't like its 1mm of eye relief. I couldn't ever see the full field of view of the 8mm Brandon; whereas, I can with the 7mm UO ortho.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998
Subject: Eyepiece talk
Well, I was very pleased with the 12.5mm UO ortho, and can't see how it could ever be a mistake from what I have experienced so far. 12.5mm UO ortho seems to have more eye relief than the 16mm UO Konig that I used to have and liked.
The 7mm UO ortho is vastly superior to the 8mm Brandon for eye relief, and the quality of the view seems to be the same, though I didn't have them both at the same time, of course. But, I do consider the 7mm UO ortho to be rather uncomfortable for eye relief. If I satisfy myself with only part of the field of view, I can back away far enough that my eyelashes just barely touch the housing, and I can get close enough to see the whole field of view if I need to. Both of which I couldn't do with the Brandon.
As you know, the 7.5mm and 5mm LE's both have the same eye relief. I have found the 5mm Tak LE to be totally acceptable for eye relief, so the 7.5mm LE should be great as well. I have a friend who has all the 1.25" Zeiss orthos. The only eyepiece that he says he has, that's in the Zeiss class for giving total satisfaction every time he uses it, is the 7.5mm Tak LE. He essentially told me that I HAVE to get that one; which, I have done -- it should be here in a couple of days.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 03:23:43
Subject: 9-8-98 Report
After midnight local time, Mountain Standard, I looked out to find no clouds; it was overcast three hours before. Around midnight, the wind was bad, but I couldn't resist the clear skies. Also, Dan Bruton's program TRACKER 6.0 told me that the GRS was coming around.
I set up my Quantum 6, f/15. With the wind, I figured I would only last an hour before the allergies got to me. My goal was to try out a variety of new equipment. The seeing was not the best.
The winner for the night was the new 12.5mm UO ortho, at 182X. On average, it provided the best views of Jupiter out of any eyepiece. The 14mm Pentax XL gave a nice image of Jupiter, but the white ovals in the bands were more imagined than actually seen. With the 12.5mm UO ortho as the seeing would come and go, the white ovals in the bands would clearly come and go. The 10.5mm XL clearly showed the GRS, but I don't remember ever seeing the white ovals separate out of the bands.
The 12.5mm UO ortho has enough eye relief for my needs, and the quality seems to be there as well.
I actually lasted two hours, but I did have to take a trip inside to deal with the allergies for awhile in between.
A late discovery when Jupiter was on the meridian: I was also very pleasantly surprised by the performance of a 30mm Celestron Ultima on top of a 2X Ultima Barlow, for 15mm giving 152X. Very comfortable viewing, and periodically for three to four seconds, all the white ovals would come jumping out into view clearly and distinctly. I was very happy with the view.
I also had a new 2" barlow made by Gary Russell -- it's a 2" shorty barlow, kind of cool. In the scope it seems to come in somewhere between 1.75X and 2X. I have a 1.25" to 2" adapter that I use. Again, the 1.25" 30mm Celestron Ultima on the new Gary Russell shorty 2" barlow made for a very nice combination on Jupiter. My initial impression is that the 2" barlow is a winner as well. The barlow seemed to perform with the 20mm Nagler and the 32mm UO Konig every bit as well as the 1.75X internal barlow of the Q6. In fact, the Gary Russell barlow seemed to have less, or no, ghosting problems. I didn't study it as much as I would have liked to, as I had originally decided to get the barlow to use with the 20mm Nagler in my 16 inch f/4.6.
I tried a 7mm UO ortho in the Q6 on Jupiter, but it was just too much power. The main bands and GRS were clearly there, but the detail was not as pleasing; and, the cool down and seeing were giving fuzzy moons. I surprisingly found the eye relief to be tolerable. I didn't need the full field of view most of the time; but, when I did, I found I could get close enough to be able to see the full field of view if I needed to, even though my eyelashes would brush against the housing of the eyepiece from time to time. With the 8mm Brandon eyepiece that I tried earlier this year, I could never get close enough to see the full field of view even if I wanted to.
I tried a variety of eyepieces on the moon. The 32mm UO Konig and the 20mm Nagler both combined with the 4X moon filter and the 2.5" aperture stop finally made for some comfortable viewing of the moon. No more night blindness. And, the aperture stop really gave a crisp image.
I also wandered into the 12.5mm and 7mm UO orthos on the moon. On the moon, the 7mm UO ortho, full Q6 aperture, focused up quite nicely. I was pleased.
I couldn't resist, and I put a 5mm Tak LE into the scope onto the moon. Surprisingly, it actually wanted to come to a focus. I was so surprised, that I turned it onto Jupiter as well. The 5mm Tak LE was actually wanting to focus up on Jupiter at 457X. Now the seeing wasn't good enough to give me much more than the bands and GRS; but, the fact that the limb of Jupiter seemed relatively sharp instead of hairy or fuzzy was a pleasant surprise. I get a very strong feeling that the 7.5mm Tak LE that is currently on its way could prove to be a very significant eyepiece in my collection -- good eye relief and a possibility of a good sharp image as well.
I realized even more clearly how far I have to go before I will be able to consider myself competent at planetary observing. I think I need to look into a book on Jupiter, as I am finally seeing enough detail, that it might pay to try to figure out the names for some of it. Maybe my 200 hours of observing 'nothing' on Jupiter is finally starting to pay off.
I came to one overriding conclusion tonight. For a planetary observer, a huge collection of eyepieces is a definite advantage. I had always noticed that the best or most dedicated planetary observers seemed to have a dozen or more eyepieces between 2.5mm and 14mm. They weren't as a whole nowhere near as specific as to which ones are the best. In other words, they can't seem to agree as to which brands are the best ones to have, but they each seemed to have a whole bunch of whatever they had chosen. Jay Freeman has all the Vixen Lanthanums in that range. Stew Squires seems to have all the Pentax Orthos and UO orthos. Joe Donahue has all the Zeiss orthos. Jeff Medkeff seems to have all the UO orthos. One person on the net, Mike Harvey, settled on all the Tak LE's. Todd Gross seems to have one of everything, at one time or another.
Anyway, my collection is finally sizing up enough that I could see the reasoning. One needs to start at 14mm, then go to 12mm, and then to 10mm, et cetera, until he finds the magnification for the seeing that gives the most detail. Then as the seeing improves or worsens, and as the scope cools, one needs to change magnification from time to time in order to see if a different magnification will show more detail. I found myself for a few moments wishing I had a 9mm UO ortho to put into the scope -- 12.5mm was holding it quite well, and 7mm was just always way too much on Jupiter. I do have a 9mm UO ortho on back order; and, I get the feeling that it too will be a welcome addition.
In short, I came to the general conclusion that if one is to play the planetary game, the more eyepieces he can collect, the better off he will be no matter what scope he has. And, if he has more than one scope, he is more than likely going to need even more eyepieces if he intends to successfully use both scopes for planetary work and be able to ride the waves of seeing.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:41:12
Subject: 7.5 Tak LE
September 11, 1998 -- 10:20 Mountain Standard Time
6 inch Quantum Maksutov f/15.
I got home from work 10:20 P.M. I set up the Q6 as I had seen Jupiter peek out from in between the clouds from time to time on the drive home. It was basically overcast, but with a few breaks here and there.
Through the clouds and with 30 second openings every few minutes, I could sense the Great Red Spot approaching the meridian. Earthly clouds were bad though and I had a 14mm Pentax XL in there, wide field to aid in tracking. It clouded over, so I went in to get something to eat.
I stepped out stunned to see the last remaining clouds progressing towards the east -- basically clear skies. I raced to the scope just in time to see the shadow of Europa carving a hole into the limb of Jupiter at around 11:20 P.M. local Mountain Standard time Sept. 11, 1998. The official time of the Shadow Ingress of Europa from a chart I have was at 5:19 Universal Time on 9-12-1998.
The receding clouds left me with some above average seeing. I put in the 7.5mm Takahashi LE (304X) that had arrived that day, and I was stunned to see a lot of detail in the bands as well. Probably one of the best images I have ever seen of Jupiter in the Q6. There was a well shaped GRS, and there seemed to be two relatively large storms in the Southern Equitorial Belt that were 'chasing' the GRS as well. Detail and shape to the bands. If I have my terminology right, the Southern Equitorial Belt and the South Temperate Belt seemed to almost merge into one with only a very narrow region or separation in between to separate them. I am still trying to figure out what everything is as I have not had much luck at finding detail in the past with a 7mm Pentax XL in the Q6. These 'planetary eyepieces,' orthos and LE's, that I have been recently acquiring seem to be opening up avenues of possibility for me.
At this time, the 12.5mm UO Ortho (182X) was also giving a very stunning view, as I took my time and switched between a variety of eyepieces trying them out. I tried the 5mm Tak LE (457X) off and on. It was relatively disappointing as it gave too much magnification; but, at the very best of seeing, the shadow and Europa on the limb both came sharply into view, and the three storm systems also stood out obviously for moments of 10 to 20 seconds. When the seeing worsened with the 5mm LE, the shadow of Europa would literally disappear, phase, or blend into the background. Over time, the seeing just wasn't allowing it for the most part with the 5 LE, so I switched back to the 7.5mm Tak LE and just enjoyed the view for awhile; extremely good performance for such a high (304X) magnification. With the 7.5mm LE, the shadow was continuously visible as was Europa for the most part.
As time passed and Europa moved into the planet, it became harder and harder to see. The seeing was still good as the shadow was still sharp and clear. I then experimented around with the eyepieces. I soon noticed that the disappearing Europa was actually easier to see with the 7mm UO Ortho than it was with the 7.5mm LE. Despite the higher power of the 7mm UO ortho, I found that it seemed to give every bit as sharp and for split seconds maybe even a sharper image than the 7.5mm Tak LE, of Europa itself.
I was using the 7mm UO ortho in a different fashion than I use my other eyepieces, though. With 7 ortho, I was pulling my head back, increasing the eye relief, and narrowing the field of view so as to make Jupiter just barely fit within the field of view that was still visible; then I would just move my head as the narrowed image of Jupiter moved through the larger field of view. With the other eyepieces, they had enough eye relief that I just put my head so as to be able to see the whole field of view all at one. Despite the fine performance of the 7mm Ortho, the inherently larger field of view of the 7.5 LE as well as the nearly double eye relief of the LE made it so that I just preferred to use and stick with the 7.5mm LE for the most part. The 7mm UO ortho was useful mostly for pulling the last views of Europa out of the image, before it became impossible to do so in the 7mm range.
I also noticed that Europa was almost impossible to see with the 10.5 XL; noticeably better in the higher power 7 Ortho and 7.5 LE. As Europa moved inward, it became basically impossible to detect in the higher power eyepieces, though the shadow was still there. I found that the 12.5mm UO ortho (182X) was the last eyepiece to clearly show Europa, when the higher power ones wouldn't. The 12.5mm UO ortho was super contrasty and nice. If a 12.5mm UO ortho will produce approximately 170X to around 220X in your telescopes, I highly recommend the eyepiece for planetary observing, as I have been extremely happy with it.
I also worked Saturn in. I got the feeling that 12.5mm was not enough magnification to be able to detect the Cassini division. I would notice the Cassini division from time to time with the 7.5mm LE; but, overall it was not very impressive. Saturn was to the east over 50,000 more houses.
After awhile, I also started to notice that the shadow of Europa was also harder to see in all the eyepieces. The seeing was deteriorating as I was noticing more and more heat waves across the planet. As the seeing deteriorated, the 7.5mm Tak LE became more and more useless for Jupiter. I found the 10.5 XL and the 12.5mm UO Ortho to be the eyepieces of choice instead. The 12.5mm UO ortho provided the sharpest and most usable images for the longest period of time.
I decided to give up around 12:40 A.M. when I realized that the shadow of Europa and the two remaining storms were not easy to see in the 12.5mm UO ortho. The GRS was moving off the limb. The seeing was really deteriorating, and it looked like there were clouds trying to move back in from the west and south.
I went back out at 1:05 A.M. to mostly cloudy skies and a noticeable breeze. There were holes moving in from the south from time to time. I rode the holes in the clouds with the 12.5mm UO ortho, and even put in the 7.5 LE during the biggest hole. The shadow of Europa was visible from time to time in the 7.5 LE as the seeing allowed. The seeing was more suitable for the 12.5 ortho. The image of Jupiter was not that impressive -- not like it had been earlier.
In my Lumicon 2" to 1.25" adapter, the 7.5mm LE was parfocal with the 12.5mm UO ortho -- kind of an interesting coincidence, as they were the two eyepieces I had settled upon as being the best or most comfortable in the Q6 for riding the clouds. By 1:39 A.M., I was still doing the same process. During larger holes, I would try the 7.5mm LE for a look at Jupiter. When the seeing would deteriorate or the clouds would cover so as to make the shadow of Europa impossible to see, I'd switch back to the 12.5mm UO ortho, which would still show the shadow for the most part.
Did wish that I had access to a 9mm Ortho to try as well, because I think it would have provided a useful interim power as the seeing would come and go. The 9mm ortho might potentially be parfocal with the 12.5mm ortho and 7.5 LE.
I wanted to watch the shadow and Europa come off the limb, but the clouds were making that task nearly impossible. The moon had risen in the east, and I spent a few seconds viewing it as well, through the cloud cover. I gave up at 1:40 A.M.; and, by around 2:00 A.M., I went back to notice that it was totally overcast. Neither the moon nor its light was detectable any longer through the clouds. The shadow of Europa supposedly came off the limb at 2:01 A.M. local time -- 8:01 Universal Time on 9-12-1998.
By 2:15 A.M. my time, I resigned the battle as lost and went out and put the scope away, as the clouds were thicker than ever. Overall, it was a very fun observing session.
Happy viewing to you all, as well,
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998
Subject: 7.5 Tak LE
Well, that one was kind of hard for me to describe. It's like the detail is there and equally the same in both the 7mm Ortho and the 7.5mm LE; but, the colors in the orthos seemed a touch brighter and more distinct. In other words, the images basically looked the same; but, when it came to Europa, the moon's difference in color from Jupiter's color made it so that Europa more clearly stood out from the background using the orthos than it did with the other eyepieces. I could see Europa longer in the orthos than with the other eyepieces. But, when I could no longer see Europa at all, then I was glad to switch to the 7.5mm Tak LE for the superior eye relief and field of view, as everything else seemed much the same in both eyepieces.
Kind of the case where the right tool for the right job is indicated. Orthos for limb work, and LE's for prolonged comfortable viewing.
I probably should have stuck in the 7mm Pentax XL for a comparison, but I never remember the 7mm XL performing as well in the Q6 as the 7mm Ortho and 7.5mm LE did right from the start. I essentially have considered the 7mm XL off limits for the Q6 due to the last year of trying to use the 7XL for planetary viewing with the Q6; and, I didn't even think to stick it into the scope until it was too late, as I think the orthos and LE's are better suited to planetary viewing.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:16:01
Subject: Transits.
Along with all the activity, Jupiter provides some of the most interesting challenges to scopes and eyepieces. Just by switching scopes and eyepieces, so many different things come and go that weren't there before.
I hope you were able to get the Io Transit. All three weathermen on TV said that it was clear. Yet for the last three hours it has been mostly cloudy. The clouds basically ruined the Io transit. I saw the shadow from time to time, but the passage onto and off from the limbs by Io and the shadow was missed due to clouds.
The seeing is the worst I have had in a long time, as well. So far, very disappointing.
Jupiter amazes me every time I see it when the seeing is good. I had the 7.5mm LE in the 16 incher tonight for 249X. Suddenly everything went sharp. There was so much detail that it took my breath away. I can't believe the level of detail within the bands just barely out of view for most of the time, but there in great seeing. I made a dash for the 5mm Tak LE; but, by the time I got it in there and focussed up the seeing was deteriorating again, and never came back. More about that later.
The 16mm UO Konig has come in handy, as the seeing has been so bad tonight that the 16mm UO Konig is giving better images of Jupiter than the 12.5mm UO Ortho. The 12.5mm Tak LE was much more pleasing than the 12.5 UO Ortho on the globular clusters I looked up, due to the wider field, and slightly greater eye relief.
Well, I have been happy with my eyepieces tonight. I even had the 4mm UO ortho showing the Io shadow for split seconds from time to time at 467X.
A new eyepiece can bring on an all night observing session like nothing else. It's like Christmas. Gee, when four of them came on the same day, it's like the day after Christmas let down -- now I don't have anything new to look forward to in the mail coming my direction. ;-) I do build of a lot of anticipation just waiting for them to come in the mail sometimes.
The seeing is horrible. I wander back from time to time for another look. I had the 16 inch scope full aperture in the hopes of maintaining cool down. One time, I wandered out and was casually looking at Jupiter with a 7.5mm Tak LE, watching it all boil. For four or five minutes, nothing impressive, then suddenly the seeing went perfect on me at full aperture and all the detail in the bands resolved out. My jaw dropped. I had forgotten what all the detail within the bands could look like if it were all suddenly visible all at once; so, much stuff there that it would take an evening to draw it. After the initial shock, I went to put in the 4mm UO ortho and later the 5mm Tak LE; but, the seeing was deteriorating as I was trying to focus up, and I didn't get anything useful in the end. Then another cloud passed in front of the image, and it went back to the 16mm UO Konig being the eyepiece of choice, as the seeing went so bad within a matter of minutes. I had the Holy Grail there for 15 seconds.
If we lived on the moon and could breath in a vacuum, the 16 incher would be one hot scope for Jupiter viewing.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:18:10
Subject: New Stuff in 16 inch
September 15, 1998
16 inch f/4.6 reflector.
After midnight local Mountain Standard time.
The 4mm UO ortho was really exciting when for brief moments every now and then when the Cassini division would connect up all the way around the front to the other side -- 16 inch full aperture.
The whole Cassini division was easier to detect at first in the 4mm UO Ortho; and it was better full aperture. Just wait for the moments of better seeing to come and go.
The 5mm Tak LE gave me a distinct impression multiple times that I was sensing some kind of detail on the surface of Ganymede, as the Jovian moon was approaching the limb of Jupiter -- full aperture at the meridian. For the most part, the 5mm LE also seemed to perform better on Jupiter than the 4mm UO ortho. More detail with the 5mm LE on average due to the seeing.
The 5mm Tak LE barlows up very well on the 2X Ultima for making the Jovian moon shadows massive -- also Ganymede on the limb at that 744X power was fantastic, the size and shape. Very impressive as the seeing allows considering of course I don't have much former Jovian-moon-detail experience as a basis -- 16 inch full aperture.
With the 5mm LE star testing, I was getting the first hints of a ring structure inside and outside of focus, in a star test. The seeing was almost there, and lasted for long periods of time, again full aperture; but, there were still signs of a lot of turbulence, so I still have a ways to go to achieve perfection with the seeing.
The 7.5mm Tak LE cleanly split the double double, full aperture and stopped down.
With Saturn, the 4mm and 5mm range were powerful enough that I could actually sense a dimming in the ring's brightness midway outward from the Cassini division, from time to time -- maybe that's the Encke Minima feature some talk about. Those powers were also useful for bringing out the Crepe ring as well.
The 12.5 Tak LE was great on globular clusters. It also barlowed up on the 2X Ultima for a very impressive image of Jupiter. There are moments when 5mm (372X) is too much and 7.5mm (248X) is too little. The 12.5 Tak LE on the 2X Ultima gives 297X, and the image is relatively wide field and as easy to track with, as the 5mm and 7.5mm Tak LE's. And, the eye relief is good too.
For quality of view, I couldn't sense any difference between the 12.5mm Tak LE and the 12.5mm UO ortho; but, then that's 148X and both eyepieces appear to be great eyepieces, so the differences are going to be hard to detect.
The 9mm UO ortho didn't get used much, as it just wasn't a useful power. I either spent my time with the 16mm UO Konig due to horrible seeing and heat waves from the city; or, when things were more favorable, I tended to jump right up to the 5mm Tak LE, depending upon the seeing and the position of the objects being viewed. Stuff towards the zenith and meridian were in the 5mm to 7mm range; whereas, the stuff coming over the eastern horizon, were mostly in the 16mm range. The 9mm UO ortho I expect to shine with the Quantum 6 sometime in the future.
Maybe I finally have enough of the right eyepieces so as to make it easier to do planetary viewing. I also was so pleased with the Tak LE's for their wider field of view and extra eye relief, that I never really felt the need to wander inside to get the other eyepiece case with the Pentax XL's inside. I am finding the LE's to be very versatile for both planetary and deep sky work.
It was a full aperture night after midnight. Half of my eyepieces dewed over while sitting waiting to be used, as did some of my color filters. The cardboard aperture stop was quickly turning to mush, so I set it inside. My telrad dewed over towards the end, and I had water running off the rocker box.
I finished off with the Orion Nebula. The six stars of the trapezium were easily detected in everything I tried all the way from a 5mm Tak LE down to a 20mm Nagler. There was quite a bit of nebulosity detected considering that the moon was up as well as all the sky glow. Six stars and nebulosity all due to the blessings of full 16 inch aperture.
I do have a very versatile scope in the 16 incher, and I now have a lot of eyepieces that serve well to create a lot of versatility also. With the number of eyepieces I now have, I can now attempt almost anything my imagination can think of doing. And, I now have a versatile enough range that I can ride the waves of seeing, good or bad, successfully with both my Quantum 6 and the 16 incher.
And, there you have it for those who have asked.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:06
Subject: New Stuff in 16 inch
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 a friend writes:
>
>I never was able to do these things.
>
My Friend:
My initial reaction would have been to say, "I don't know why not." But, after my experience last year of continuous bad seeing, I can understand it quite well. The seeing has to be probably an 8 out of 10; in other words, one has to be sensing the defocused rings through the fuzz in the star test, with the full 16 inches of aperture.
Using laser, I also tweeked the collimation to absolute perfection yet again with the scope relatively close to the Ganymede and Jupiter position, before trying. Also, in this valley, Jupiter has to be around the meridian towards the zenith. And the seeing has to be comfortable enough for the 5mm Tak LE to basically stay in the scope at 372X; in other words, while riding the waves of seeing, the image has to look good half of the time at 372X. The seeing has to be good enough to run the scope at full aperture and get away with it. And, it also helps to have around 200 hours of prior experience on Jupiter with a lesser instrument. A lot of factors have to add up to above average conditions.
Then at 744X, the goal has to be rather limited. The goal was to see the round disks of Ganymede and the shadow as clearly large and as clearly round as possible. Then ride the waves of seeing. At that power and quality of seeing, there seemed to be three 'regions' of prime focus, one of which statistically gave the sharpest image of the shadow from time to time. And, sometimes I couldn't solidly focus the shadow out, so I dropped back down to 372X.
I found at 372X that the seeing was such that all the macro detail was there most of the time. The major storms and the large ovals were almost continuously visible in both of the belts. And the belts seemed to be doing some fine detail of their own. There was also large detail sensed in the Southern Temperate region from time to time, if I could get the focus just right. The Southern Equitorial Belt seemed to be continuously spotted clear across with white storms, ovals, and such as if it were split in half. If I understand the terminology, it was a lighter region of activity between the South Temperate Belt and the South Equitorial Belt. The Northern Temperate region seemed to separate into separate bands or lines of activity. If the seeing would have gone totally perfect, I think I would have seen the fine detail that I saw in the Clark -- detail, within the macro detail that I was seeing, would have been possible. In the Northern Equitorial belt there seemed to be a large semi circle of a storm, kind of dark, that looked more like what one would think the GRS should look like. There was also an extremely bright concentrated white spot that rode the NEB across the surface over an hour's worth of time; it was brighter than any other feature on the surface of Jupiter. Quite a bit of progress from last summer when I could only get the two main belts to focus out from time to time in the Quantum 6.
Looking at your input from last year, you were seeing the same stuff that I was seeing. You were doing the exact same stuff that I was able to do. With what I was seeing on a prolonged basis, I could have drawn what you were seeing last year, as that's what I was seeing. I get the feeling you were doing it at 7mm through a binoviewer. I think the binoviewer and all the glass steals some resolution from you forcing you down to the 7mm range, but then gives some back in the form of two eyes. In order for me to get the same results with one eye, I have to have very few glass elements in the eyepiece, and I have to run at 5mm to get the macro detail large enough to be usefully visible as the seeing comes and goes. Then I have to patiently ride the seeing. If the seeing were to suddenly go towards perfection at 5mm, like it did for 15 seconds one time earlier at 7.5mm, then I get the feeling all the finer detail I saw in the nine inch Clark refractor would come popping out at me at 5mm.
In other words, if I could focus out ALL the detail relatively clearly and sharply at 744X, then the seeing would be good enough to show everything I saw in the Clark, and the image would be perfection with fine detail at 5mm (372X).
The only thing basically that I experienced different than you, as I had prolonged success at 5mm last night during the Ganymede transit, is to brave up and put in a barlow for 2.5mm from time to time. You probably didn't have extra barlows to throw onto the binoviewer for 3.5mm to maximize the size of the shadows.
Go look at your Jupiter message from last year. I was there last night at that quality of view for most of the Ganymede transit; but, I didn't surpass it. The seeing would have had to go towards perfection, in order for me to surpass what you had experienced last year and what I experienced last night. The only thing more that I maybe sensed was a touch more detail in the Southern Temperate region from time to time when the seeing would move towards it's very best, 8 out of 10, instead of 7 out of 10.
If you have seen Todd Gross' web page, what I was seeing last night most closely approximated the Todd Gross three picture montage he did of Todd on the left, Don Parker in the middle, and Todd at the right. The TodPark3.JPG CCD image if memory of the file name serves. What I was seeing looked the most like the 8-10 08:01 GMT SYS2:252 CCD image on the right displayed at 640X480X16 million. Ovals almost ready to individualize -- the largest ones clearly distinct. Tons of detail, but basically NONE of the ultra ultra fine detail possible at yet a higher magnification and/or higher resolution that perfect seeing might give access to.
So, you have indeed seen through a scope what I was seeing on a continuous basis at 5mm (372X) last night at the meridian. The fact that it took 372X for me to get it with one eye what you were able to get at 265X with two eyes is not too surprising. You had a ton of glass in there; whereas, I had ton of simplicity. Also, I like to ride right at the edge of seeing requiring occasional refocusing, and resulting in the image being sub-par nearly half of the time. As long as the seeing swings into acceptability every ten to fifteen seconds and lasts for five or ten seconds, I am usually satisfied.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:23:16
Subject: I'm glad for ya.
>Darwin,
>
>I'm glad you had some good viewing and some good eyepieces to
do
>it with. It's amazing that you could resolve details on a moon
of
>Jupiter. Large aperture really has its benefits.
>
'Resolved' may be a little extreme. ;-) I like to be conservative. I would call it 'sensed' the possibility of detail on Ganymede. Sensed different shades of grey.
>Also, it sounds like you are used to that telescope now.
>I don't hear any groaning in your e-mails. (Ha).
Well, when a 7mm Pentax XL was my highest power eyepiece, I was indeed experiencing a ton of problems trying to see any detail on Jupiter and some dissatisfaction with the views.
>I would agree that the Takahashi is more comfortable than the
U.O.
>Ortho in equal focal length. By design the ortho should be a
bit
>sharper and resolve better. Takahashi makes very smoothly
figured
>high quality glass which probably equalizes it with the U.O.
ortho
>design.
At a 4mm UO ortho and a 5mm Tak LE, I found that the ortho was better to bring out the Cassini division, and I found the 5mm LE was better for riding the waves of seeing and tracking manually on Jupiter. The LE image of all of Jupiter also looked better probably because the image was in the field of view long enough for my eye to statistically process out the image and sense the details.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:28:17
Subject: Clarification just in case.
Io Transit -- 2:32 UT Sept 15, 1998.
Ganymede Transit -- 7:41 UT Sept 15, 1998 -- which was 1:41
A.M. my
local
time.
I sure had an interesting observing session during the encore performance of Ganymede last night, especially considering how rotten the Io transit proved to be earlier on.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998
Subject: The teflon is gone.
I never fully realized how great the seeing really was last weekend -- shades of grey on Ganymede and the double double clearly split with the full 16 inches of aperture.
I thought the 16 incher was invincible.
I didn't think the seeing could be worse than last night, but tonight is just painful; none of the doubles will split. The globulars look mushy. Four inch aperture stop on Jupiter with a 12.5mm UO ortho, and I can barely make out the GRS. The stars won't even pinpoint at 30mm; they look fuzzy. It's clear outside, but I won't be seeing shades of grey on Ganymede tonight.
One moment there, I had a sickly instinctual feeling come over me that maybe the scope had gotten broken somehow, as it was not the same scope I was using last weekend. When I got control of myself emotionally, I thought to check the collimation. It was basically right on. After checking the collimation, I tried Jupiter again -- it's the pits.
What's a guy to do when the gremlins sneak in at night and destroy his favorite scope? It's like somebody swapped the optics on me.
Sometimes things get better around 2:00 A.M. I'll have to try again later.
A sad Darwin.
---
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998
Subject: Magnification.
Well, I can buy into seeing being a problem. A half an hour after midnight, and so far, the 12.5mm UO ortho is too much power, as the heat waves run like water over the image.
The Klee magnifies wierdly. The results seen using it don't seem to match the stated magnification.
Follow up: I took a nap and went back out at 1:30 A.M. The 9mm UO ortho seemed to be providing the best views on average. Clouds were starting to move in. I did get a stint there with the 7mm UO ortho on the GRS that was very nice for a few moments. The 4mm UO Ortho still proves to be superior on Saturn -- at 4mm Saturn is just starting to get nice; but, the seeing only allowed the Cassini division all the way around for fractions of a second. My eye was doing statistical averaging to make it out. Probably not worth it, for prolonged viewing.
I also noticed with the inferior seeing that the Orthos seemed to be walking all over the 5mm and 7.5mm Tak LE's. In comparison, the LE's need above average seeing in order for them to bring out the detail -- and I didn't have above average seeing anytime tonight. Also, I do seem to get more detail using full 16 inch aperture even if I have to settle for the 9mm to 12.5mm orthos due to seeing limitations.
The clouds are now interfering with the observing session as well. Mostly cloudy now at 2:30 A.M. I'll probably go out and try to work in some observing through the clouds and maybe try to catch the Trapezium again towards the east as the clouds are coming from the south and west.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998
Subject: Magnification in practice.
I am finding that the thing I like the best about the 2X Celestron Ultima barlow is that it really appears to function closely to 2X, and two times is really easy for doing the math and figuring the effective result with any given eyepiece. Doesn't seem like much at first to the casual observer, but out in the battlefield when the brain is all fogged up at the wee hours, it does make a difference.
I find this time around that I am getting along with my 4mm ortho and the 7mm ortho much better than I have been able to the last 10 years with the orthos I have tried in the past. I use my orthos basically for Saturn and Jupiter, and I no longer try to get in there close attempting to see the whole field of view. I back off giving myself more eye relief and only try to get the planet itself in there, instead of the full field of view. I can pretty much back off far enough that my eyelashes don't touch. The 4mm is kind of hard to track with, though.
The 5mm LE on the 2X Ultima gave a unusable bloated image of Saturn tonight, the seeing was nowhere near up to it. I figured that next I probably need to try all the UO orthos I have on top of the different barlows to see if I can work up something in the 2.5mm to 4mm range for Saturn that is comparable to what the 4mm UO ortho does on its own. I really liked the 12.5mm LE on the 2X Ultima targeting Jupiter yesterday during some good seeing, so maybe some of the others will shine on a barlow when targeting Saturn.
Given the my recent theory that the Pentax Orthos are going to show their superiority at higher magnifications if there is superiority, that kind of argues towards the 5mm and 6mm Pentax Orthos as the targets if I am actually going to save up and try to get one or two of them someday. Tonight in the mediocre seeing, I was pleased enough with the 7mm and 9mm UO orthos; so, I probably don't need the Pentax version of those. The 9mm UO ortho has enough eye relief for me to see the whole field of view while viewing, as well. The 7mm UO ortho is where things start getting tight.
I have noticed in my current two scopes that the 7mm range is where things start getting interesting and the need for higher quality resolution and sharpness starts becoming important. At 7mm the image of Jupiter starts looking interesting. And, at times I do notice a slight improvement in the image by using the 7mm UO ortho instead of the 7.5mm Tak LE. The LE's seem to be more sensitive to poor seeing as well. If the seeing is 8 out of 10 so that the ring structure out of focus is just starting to be detectable in a star test through all the turbulence, then the 7.5mm LE seems to perform as well as the 7mm UO ortho. But, in horrific seeing, the orthos seem to walk all over the comparable LE's.
Anyway, I am slowly getting there. One of these days I will learn to know what I like.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998
Subject: Limitations with 16 inch scope.
16 inch limitations from my light polluted backyard?
The globular clusters have been nice. M13 and M22 have been my most favorite, though I have looked up and found others, M3 for example. I also really like the open clusters too with the 2" 32mm UO Konig or 30mm Ultima. Got in the open cluster Messier objects in Auriga. I do like the double cluster.
Every planetary I have found, all two of them, I have really been pleased with. The problem, at times, is finding them. Ring and Dumbell are the only two regulars so far.
The Andromeda Galaxy is okay. ;-) I haven't been happy with the galaxies at all. I was able to sense the Whirlpool averted at 32mm. I also was able to sense NGC 7331, just barely with the 30mm Ultima. Light pollution.
After I am into a session about three hours or so, if I go looking for double stars, they are usually very pleasing. Some of the bright doubles with the full 16 inches of aperture are extremely pretty. Can we say, "Gamma Arietis?" Can we say, "Albireo?" Can we say, "Alcor and Mizar?" :) The double double has been my test for the quality of seeing. That, and the Trapezium.
The Orion Nebula with a 16mm UO Konig and a 1.25" Orion UltraBlock filter made for a nice image on the night of the horrible seeing. But, I couldn't get the six stars of the Trapezium no matter what I tried, however observing the nebulosity through the city glow was truly pleasing. The Lagoon has been pleasing at times as well. And, one night with a filter, I did get the Trifid to break into its three parts. The Swan or Omega Nebula with a filter has been successful as well.
So far, my most satisfying 'deep sky' experience with the 16 inch is to just put in the 30mm Ultima or the 32 UO Konig and just wander the Milky Way around the zenith area. In some areas, there are so many stars, even in light pollution, that I find the experience truly inspirational. Wandering the galactic core of Sagittarius is also pleasing, though it is rather low on the horizon and has more sky glow.
Anyway, all is not lost from my backyard. But, galaxies and supernova 'remains', seem to be off limits. I do need to give up my eyepiece addiction, though, and work on saving some money for digital setting circles so I can find myself some planetary nebulae, double stars, and globulars more easily.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998
Subject: 20mm UO Super Erfle
It was in my mailbox when I got home from work.
Wow! What an interesting looking eyepiece. It is much more compact than other erfles that I have seen. In fact, in the box it looked much like the size and shape of a Konig. Maybe it is the "20mm Konig" that UO's supplier never made, but that many have been looking for.
I am going to have a lot of fun fussing with this one.
I have been relatively disappointed with deep sky stuff through the 16 incher; and, I have been pleased beyond my wildest dreams about the planetary performance. Consequently, I have spent most of my time in the 4mm to 14mm range with the 16 incher taking in Jupiter, and sometimes Saturn. I have two eyepiece cases. The one with the orthos and LE's, and the other with the 2" stuff and Pentax XL's; and, the case with the 2" stuff has been staying inside lately. When the seeing is rotten, then I reluctantly switch to deep sky, and I go inside to get the case. Then by terms of definition, I am getting rotten views because the seeing is bad, so maybe the widefield stuff isn't doing as well for me as it could. Also, the clouds usually soon follow, so not much deep sky time has been spent, proportionally.
I don't use the 20mm Nagler as much as the 32mm UO Konigs, nor as much as the 1.25" 30mm Ultima. I feel conflicted and confused about the 20mm Nagler. If I ever get the 16 incher to a dark site, everyone, and I mean everyone, has told me that the 20mm Nagler is the eyepiece I want to use with my 16 incher to go after galaxies -- it supposedly will blow everything away in that situation. But, I see the galaxies easier in the 32mm and 30mm eyepieces in my light polluted backyard. I don't have time to go to dark skies, as I have been working in the evenings.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 99
Subject: Joe Donahue wrote about the Tak LE's:
Darwin,
I bought Gary McClaran's 5mm Takahashi LE to replace my broken one. Again, I toyed with buying a 5mm Takahashi ortho or 5mm Pentax ortho instead, but I always liked the LE eyepieces. I find that the LE eyepieces sort of "smooth over" seeing problems even though they aren't as sharp as orthos when the seeing is perfect.
Hope to talk to you soon.
Joe
[DIVERTING TO THE END, IN THE MIDDLE: Some nights I too prefer the Takahashi LE's over my orthos. Sometimes I think the LE's actually perform better than my orthos in some circumstances. I still haven't figured out all the different ways in which the LE's can beat the orthos besides for eye relief; but, I do find it interesting that others are experiencing the same thing from time to time. I believe there have been times when my experiences with the LE's contradict what Joe wrote above; sometimes I find that the LE's are performing very very well in good seeing. But, I also find that I routinely use the Tak LE's while waiting out the seeing, and then I jump to the orthos if there are indications that the seeing is moving towards perfection. I am still trying to figure out when's the best time to use each type of eyepiece. And, I feel that any talk about planetary eyepieces really isn't complete without some discussion of orthos and Takahashi LE's. Darwin.]
---
The following message from the public NEWSGROUP sci.astro.amateur had a very strong influence on me during the summer of 1998.
Message from: Mike Harvey
Date: 1998/06/05
Forums: sci.astro.amateur
Over the past 25 years I've owned complete sets of Brandons, Clave's, TeleVues, Pentax SMC's (orthos), Zeiss, Orthostars, Naglers, PanOptics etc. etc. etc.
The earlier Clave's (70's/early 80's) were the 'world standard' for planetary observing (in my opinion) until I found the Pentax SMC orthos. To this day I have not found a superior eyepiece when it comes to contrast, definition and sharpness. HOWEVER.... they are decidedly uncomfortable to use due to the short eye relief. After several years of eye strain and aggravation, I finally decided that the Takahashi LE's delivered almost as much performance with a relaxed and easy eye relief that ACTUALLY ALLOWED ME TO GET MORE OUT OF A PLANETARY IMAGE! I find I can stay at the eyepiece longer and keep my eye and mind fresher... the end result is more productive observing.
Hope this helps!
Mike Harvey
---
Note: The 5mm and 7.5mm Takahashi LE's are made out of a
special ED
glass, to help give them lower dispersion on planetary subjects.
And,
with
that introduction, I don't want to overlook the following
message I
received
from my friend Joe. Darwin.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 98
DARWIN,
I FORGOT THE TAKAHASHI ED LE EYEPIECES ON MY LIST. THE 7.5 IS A MUST HAVE ON ANY EXPERIENCED OBSERVER'S LIST.
JOE
---
THANK YOU TO ALL MY FRIENDS, EVEN THOSE I HAVE NEVER CORRESPONDED
WITH:
January 1999:
Some people just want to be told what to buy. I have found the reports of Todd Gross and Ed Ting to sometimes be useful for that purpose -- short and simple. Others want to be told why to buy, or they want to explore the processes that go into selecting the best eyepieces or telescopes. I have found the public and private input of Jay Freeman, Mike Harvey, Dave Knisely, Stew Squires, Dick Buchroeder, Frank Bov, Gary McClaran, Joe Donahue, Mike Spooner, Ed Stewart, Rodger Gordon, Stephen Waldee, and Pete Rasmussen to be useful for that purpose -- to name just a few. That's also my purpose in this four part series, to give the reader a chance to see what someone can get from a nine month long exploration of eyepieces and telescopes.
Please note that sometimes the people listed in the previous paragraph have given me advise or input that just plain doesn't match with my experiences, opinions, and/or preferences; but, one should also note that I consider each one of them to be superior or more experienced than I, in one form or another. I have gotten excellent input, advise, and help from each of the persons listed above, in different formats from time to time; but, I haven't always agreed with every single word that they have written to me or for me. I believe each person needs to discover for himself what he or she does or does not like and what is and is not useful for his or her own circumstances. And, please forgive me for the mistakes that I make and have made, as we are all only human the last I checked.
For myself in regards to reviews and opinions and advise, I tend to forgive lack of thoroughness on the part of others, as I don't think any of us can financially afford (nor do we have the time) to do what we really would like to do. And, I also freely admit that I am not all that skilled with the mathematical aspects of astronomy; in fact, I tend to look upon telescopes and eyepieces more as works of art than as scientific instruments, and I believe that is contrary to most people's point of view.
Notice in my reviews and possibly in the reviews of others how the new eyepiece in the case tends to be the best, on average. Then notice how over a period of time, the new eyepiece isn't always the best as we get a chance to start to make comparisons of the eyepiece against other eyepieces. There's a lesson to be learned from this. The majority of eyepieces can be made to get the job done, even the ones that aren't considered to be the best by the majority of the people. If you have an eyepiece like a UO ortho or a Takahashi LE, it can be good enough and totally useful for Jupiter and Saturn, even though the majority of people out there tend to think that the 1.25" Zeiss orthos and Pentax SMC orthos are superior in side by side comparisons against the UO orthos and LE's.
Most eyepieces are very adequate to the task, and their weaknesses only become apparent when one starts to make direct comparisons against other eyepieces; and, sometimes even then, the weaknesses are not all that apparent. I have heard it mentioned more than once by others more experienced than I, that it takes a lot of experience to be able to see the superiority of the first place rated 1.25" Zeiss orthos and even more experience to notice the superiority or lack thereof from the second place rated Pentax SMC orthos, as well as both ortho lines in comparison to plossls, UO orthos, other orthos, Tak LE's, Pentax XP's, and all these being compared against each other for example. The differences are sometimes very small, or hard or impossible to detect at all. Therefore, I am thankful for all the input I have received from all my friends in the astronomy hobby, to help me try to sort it all out. I myself have noticed that at times good seeing is much more important than having the best eyepiece on hand.
I don't know if Mike Harvey and I have ever corresponded, but his public message has probably had more impact on me than any public message I have ever read, over the last two years that I have been reading messages on sci.astro.amateur; that's why I included it. You might also notice that I try to seek input from as many people as possible. There were others who recommended the Takahashi LE's to me, besides Mike Harvey and Joe Donahue; in fact, I have thought about trying to collect together all the public messages that had an influence on me, into some kind of a report; but, the task would be a massive undertaking. And, you can already read the information on the internet NEWSGROUP sci.astro.amateur, if you are willing to take the time and are so inclined. On my hard disk, I have saved public information from dozens of people -- just waiting for me to get at, whenever I desire to do so.
In summary, Mike Harvey, Joe Donahue, Todd Gross and others had a very strong influence in getting me to take a look at the Takahashi LE eyepieces. I am thankful to them for their input. They kindly helped a newbie like me to know where to look, for what I was needing at the time. Of course, I like my UO orthos and Pentax orthos that I currently have, but the Tak LE's always seem to have a way of working themselves into my observing sessions.
Darwin Bagley
---