I have no experience with the Celestron Astrometric unit, other than seeing
it in the catalog.

I do own the Mead Astrometric eyepiece, and found it generally satisfactory
for my use. True, the optics are not Plossal quality, but then I am not
looking for surface feature when I am using the eyepiece either. For
getting the size of an object, I am not convinced that better optics would
enable a significant better estimate of the size of an object. If I want
quality of observing, then other eyepieces are made for that. It is correct
that one has to press into the eyepiece to see the entire 360 deg markings.
My experience is that I have mot had to see the entire range either, so just
a slight head movement gets what I want, no problem.

I have an 8" f/6.3 scope and get 107x with the Astrometric eyepiece. With
that combination I found that the individual lines on the scale are 19
arc-seconds apart, so the 0-50 scale then is nearly 16 arc-minutes across.
My only criticism is that I can estimate the size of an object on the scale
to about 0.25 scale units ( about 5 arc-seconds ). It would have been nice
to have the scale calibrated from 0-100 so that the same scale reading
capability ( 0.25 units ) would get nearer to the telescope resolving power
( around 2 arc-seconds ). I have decided to practice reading the scale to
better than 0.25 units, so I think my real frustration is perhaps more with
myself than the eyepiece.

--
Eugene Lanning and Family

-----Original Message-----
Anthony J. Kroes
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:48 AM
Subject: [M]: RE: Astrometric Eye Pieces


Rick,

The Celestron 12.5mm Micro-Guide eyepiece is very nice.

I was all set to purchase the Meade last year at Astrofest until a friend
said 'what about this one?' and pointed to the Celestron version sitting on
the vendor's table a few feet down the row. One look through it (daytime)
sold me on it.

Most important, it was much easier on the eye (much better eye relief).
With the Meade I really had to jam my eye into the unit to get the whole
range of scales visible. With the Celestron - you just look into it. It
has a rotating section on the top for scale focus, and a fairly compact
cordless batter stem sticking out of the side. The markings are very
similar to the markings and scales on the Meade. I got the cordless unit,
but by skipping the small bushing that comes with the unit, I can also light
it up off of my LX200 with the corded LED from my Orion 12mm Illuminated
reticle eyepiece.

It was a few bucks more ($150 vs $100) but for me, the ease of use and
quality of the unit was worth it. Nice instruction book also for
calibrating scale distances and measuring double star positions and angles.
I think (someone correct me) that it is an Abbe style Orthoscopic eyepiece
with a FOV in the 50 degree range and gives me about 100 power (200-300
barlowed)in my 8" Lx200 f6.3.

Anthony J. Kroes
Green Bay, WI

> -----Original Message-----
> Foster, Rick
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:01 AM
> Subject: [M]: Astrometric Eye Pieces
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for an reticule eye piece that has the ability to measure
> angles and distance, plus be used for alignment. Meade has one, the 12mm
> MA Astrometric. I have a 9mm MA and do not particularly like the quality,
> it seems to be quite a bit away from the 26mm Plossl that came with the
> scope. Of course the 9mm MA did come with a rather cheap Meade starter
> scope.
>
>
> Are there recommendations for other brands? If you have the Meade
> Astrometric, how does the quality compare to a Plossl? How much
> eye relief?
> What is the field of view ? I am not sure which to ask for the apparent or
> actual? The 26mm I think has a 52 degree field of view, I also
> think it is
> "apparent" and if actual depends on the scopes focal length?
>
> One other thing is it just me or do others prefer using a eye piece with a
> larger FOV (26mm) and a barlow instead of trying to look through
> the little
> dot of a glass provided by the smaller field of view (9mm) eye piece?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rick in Tucson
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE:Re: [M]: Balance problem, Email address hidden
Next message: RE: [M]: Longitude difference, Eugene Lanning
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Astrometric Eye Pieces, Radu Corlan
Previous message in thread: [M]: RE: Astrometric Eye Pieces, Anthony J. Kroes