First use of my 12.5mm Morpheus was pleasant and a treat in less than ideal skies. I bought this through "AAP" an online selling service. The packaging looked like it had been repackaged used because the cardboard is not shaped so tore at stress points.
I complained to AAP due to this and the fact the rubber side eye shield was "missing" its ring. Lo and behold, only the main eye cup has a ring, despite the rubber being designed to fit over a ring. The 500 of these they sold routinely tear their packaging in the box I was told.
If mounting as a 2", I need my focuser extension tube (Orion 12/f-5 and 1500)
These details left me unimpressed. A Euro/Dollar's worth of metal ring seems a silly expense to chintz on.
So, I like the wide angle EP so far, but found the chintzy details have ruined what should have been an enjoyable experience. I had hoped the Baader name would mean attention to detail, so experienced disappointment.
This has become my first choice for an eyepiece for my 5" SCT (with a nominal magnification of 100x). The AFOV is generous, the optical quality excellent, and the viewing comfort high. No detectable "black bean" effect.
Gestern Nacht (5. 2. 2018) habe ich das Morpheus 17.5mm das erste Mal testen können und auch Bilder mit der Nikon DF (Vollformat) gemacht. Seeing medium. Das Okular ist spitze! Die neue Version der Augenmuschel SUPER!!!
Das Feld ist wunderbar, sehr gute Schärfe und hoher Kontrast und so hatte ich einen Festplatz in der Mondfähre!!!
Saturday I loaned my 12.5mm Docter to a friend so he could compare it with his 12.5mm Morpheus. Sunday afternoon he brought the Docter back to me along with the 12.5mm Morpheus so I could compare the two for myself last night. I spent almost two hours exclusively going back and forth between these two eyepieces on deep sky objects in my SW120ED. These eyepieces give 72x in the 120ED. Overall, the 12.5mm Morpheus was extremely close to the Docter and in fact to see any differences in faintest stars detected or nebular details was a challenge.
Edge performance: Docter is sharp to the edge and Morpheus has some falloff in last 10% of the field but not significant.
Comfort: The Docter was a little easier to look through at first, but as time progressed this difference mostly disappeared.
Handling: The Morpheus actually is a more balanced eyepiece than the Docter. There is a significant bulk of the weight in the bottom of the Docter. If you grab near the top of the eyepiece there is a risk of it slipping. The Docter really needs to be grabbed at the lower knurled ring.
Presentation: Just as a general feel, the field of the 12.5mm Docter is very similar to the Morpheus eyepieces - different from the XW and Delos eyepieces. In both eyepieces the field is very natural and engaging and easy to take in
Snap to focus: Not that the 12.5 Morpheus was hard to focus, but the Docter was easier to snap to sharpest focus.
Sky background: Seemed the same level of blackness in both eyepieces - maybe a couple times a slight edge to the Docter, but maybe not. It was close.
Sharpness of stars: In general I think the Docter gives a very slightly tighter star image - possibly due to the easier snap to focus.
Observing targets:
M27 - No difference in detectable details - maybe the light was a little richer in the Morpheus.
M71 - At times seemed slightly grainier with barely resolved stars in the Docter.
M17 - No detectable difference in details
M11 - No detectable difference in details and resolved stars
NGC 6712 - Maybe the light was a little richer in the Morpheus.
M8 - Maybe the light was a little richer in the Morpheus.
M27 again - Maybe the light was a little richer in the Morpheus.
M13 - No clear difference in resolved stars.
NGC 6819 - A times a slightly grainier texture from resolved stars in the Docter.
Field stars in general - I spent quite a bit of time in the fields of the different objects above identifying barely detectable stars with averted vision. Generally these stars were slightly easier to detect in the Docter - but very slightly and it took work to be confident that was what I was seeing. In no case was a star detectable in one eyepiece undetectable in the other.
Summary: Wow - these two eyepieces are close. I really love the 9mm and 6.5mm Morpheus for deep sky. So it was really nice to be able to see how closely the 12.5mm Morpheus is able to match the 12.5mm Docter. My observations seem to indicate that where faint stars are concerned the Docter may have a little easier pull whereas with nebular or unresolved light the Morpheus may actually give a little richer light. The presentation and comfort of these two eyepieces is very close. The Morpheus is basically like a slightly narrower Docter in that respect.
Now - I do think for lunar observations the Docter is better than the Morpheus eyepieces. I have done comparisons with the 9mm and 6.5mm Morpheus and the Docter with a Barlow and I think in general it is easier to look through the Docter when observing the Moon and I think there is an extra level of crispness to the lunar image in those circumstances. Hopefully this week I can do a direct comparison between the 12.5mm Morpheus and the Docter on the Moon to see if that holds up.
At any rate - for those of you that have been considering trying a Docter, the Morpheus makes a very acceptable lower cost substitute - at least for deep sky with my scope and the atmospheric conditions in my area.
The two outer holes are clearance holes with a diameter of 9 mm. The one in the middle is a 1/4 - 20 UNC thread hole. This is the standard thread used on camera tripods.
Answer by: Baader Web Team (Admin) on Nov 21, 2019 12:15:00 PM
Because of the > 3x focal lenght extention of the FFC, you will most likely see just some rest of coma at the edges of the field. But if you place an coma corrector and an FFC in a row, the image quality will degrade in the whole field. Therefore its better to use only the FFC without coma corrector
Answer by: Baader Web Team (Admin) on Nov 18, 2019 3:28:00 PM
If I modify my dslr with a baader bcf filter inside the sensor, the photos after modification will be only red without any blue or green?Or just more red plus blue and green as before?
The Baader BCF is more open in the red part of the spectrum, means all other colours pass the filter plus some more red. This gives "normal" (daylight) photos a pink touch that you can correct in image processing
Answer by: Baader Web Team (Admin) on Nov 18, 2019 8:48:00 AM
Will your new upcoming RASA 8 adapter be compatible with 17mm back-focus cameras? Will there be tilt adjustment available for these types of cameras?
Thanks
Yes, this latest addition of the UFC-family - the new RASA 8 / S70 UFC-Adapter (#2459136) which will launch on our website very soon - is compatible with 17 mm back-focus cameras such as ATIK Horizon. The UFC allows to change any kind of filter from 1 1/4" up to 50x50 mm square in front of the RASA 8.
The only function, that still might be left to desire, is an easier way to reach the front adjustment hex-screws of the RASA 8. Due to the very short backfocus available, it is somewhat difficult to reach these screws and to "tweak" the star sizes in each corner of the image to absolute perfectness.
So - in order to even reach this goal (exchange filters AND effortlessly adjust the camera tilt), in February latest we will launch a separate product - only produced for the RASA 8: the FCCT (Filter Changer & Camera Tilter). This unit will feature 3D-printed filter sliders and be only able to accept filters in diameters of 31 mm / 36 mm / and 2"(47.4 mm) w/o cell mount. This is a revolution for the RASA 8 since it makes perfect adjustment of all stars in the field a joy. Already now the first imagers are using this solution as prototypes and the results are outstanding, see here: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/blog/rasa-8-extreme-images-michael-jaeger-with-ccd-camera-f2-highspeed-filter/
Answer by: Baader Web Team (Admin) on Nov 13, 2019 4:00:00 PM