Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 29/10/15 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    As I've been posting lately, I have accomplished the near-impossible in landing a matched pair of an extraordinarily rare and little-known eyepiece. Zeiss, a company with a long and storied history of optical excellence, count large surgical microscopes as part of their catalogue. For many years they shipped a floor-standing dissection microscope with a complete binocular headpiece that was itself a fully capable binocular telescope. With an objective up-front, a conventional (as opposed to standard microscopy) eyepiece formula is required. Enter the Zeiss T* 10 x / 22 B. The Hype This family of eyepieces is defined not by a swanky series brand or a known design like 'Plossl' (in fact, I have no idea whatsoever what design these follow...), but simply by the numbers and letters on the barrel; T* - 'Transparent'; this denotes eyepieces given the Zeiss full multi-coating treatment10 x - The magnification of the eyepiece, against a 250mm focal length objective22 - The diameter of the field stop in mmB - 'Binocular'; not sure about this one, I think it means longer eye relief for binoviewingAll this calculates out to a roughly 25mm eyepiece in astronomical terms, with an AFoV around 50-55deg, slightly narrower than a Plossl but nothing like a Vixen LV at 45deg. The eyepieces come in matched pairs, so it is important to keep them together if they came off the same microscope; obviously this can't always be managed, but in this case I am assured they came from the same original unit. The body of the eyepiece is chunky and feels extremely solid, there is no rattle whatsoever, except from the threaded ring that would be used to attach it to the microscope. The eyecups are of the softer 'indoor' scientific type, and it is possible to extend the lenses upward out of the body. This has been described on other sites as an 'extendable eye cup'; this is not the case. The entire optical train of the eyepiece is shifted, essentially the 'eyepiece' moves as a threaded cylinder inside the housing. Therefore it is a dioptre adjustment, for focusing each eyepiece independently. For this, the movement is very strong and holds focus like a vise. In future, I will add a pair of 1.25mm barrels to this, for tonight (the only clear night I've had for a long while ) I simply held it in a recess in a 2" dielectric diagonal adapter, which was sound enough for a few minutes of testing. Now these units have been the source of some... interesting words, on other forums. They have been described as 'impossibly sharp', that 'the telescope just disappears', 'stars are painfully bright points' and so on. After seeing a pair on AB&S for hundreds of pounds I knew I had to have some... although not at that price I do not wish to get in trouble by quoting The Other Forum too much, but these words should suffice; ...and that is mild compared to the gushing praise that both this and other authors have heaped upon this family of Zeiss 'surgical-grade' eyepieces. Now I was deeply suspicious upon reading this, as I have had many experiences with eyepieces described as 'razor sharp' or 'bright, contrasty views' on the internet but failed comparison tests in person. I am an extremely harsh judge of eyepieces and scopes in general, and only really post reviews of those for which I have absolutely nothing bad to say. I have plenty of bad to say about the Ethos, for example. The only line of eyepieces I can't really complain about have been the Pentax XW series, which blow my mind for sharpness and flare suppression, and are the standard by which I judge all others. The scope chosen was the WO GT-81 triplet, which delivers zero CA to my eyes and is extremely sharp, with a rock-solid focuser. The Shootout! Tonight I was fighting with thick, fast-moving cloud that gave a few minutes of super-transparent sky and then orange sky-sludge for the same... frustrating, and I resolved to get the tests done quickly rather than go for a wide selection of objects. I'll offer a basic impression and a score for each eyepiece in the test; I am not going into huge depth as some reviewers do inventing metric scales and so forth, but the results will be internally self-consistent. Obviously I'm using an 80mm scope here, so no deep sky objects are chosen as they would be too small at these focal lengths to really judge. The targets of choice: Vega - I use Vega (sometimes Rigel) to judge the smallest 'star shape' an optical system can produce.Albireo - A test of colour reproduction, sharpness and contrast at lower scales. It's not a challenging double but it still shows up a bad eyepiece wellThe Milky Way - A less scientific test, I just point the scope at a random patch of the milky way. This helps determine the optical efficiency and limiting magnitude.The (nearly) full moon - Ultimate test of flare suppression, CA introduction and contrast under tough conditionsThe Contenders The eyepieces chosen to compete with the Zeiss: Takahashi LE 18mm - My go-to general-magnification EP, sharp and bright with zero ghosts and a very predictable focus behaviour. Gets the job done.Tal Gen-II Plossl 30mm - A semi-legendary and rare piece, these show field curvature at the edges but are the sharpest Plossls I've ever found by a great margin and have wonderful colour reproductionCelestron Classic Silvertop Plossl 25mm - My newest addition, and a contender with the Tal for best Plossl; not as sharp but less curved at the edgesBaader Classic Ortho 18mm - I bought this for splitting doubles with a TV Powermate, it shows the least 'flare' of all the eyepieces but a narrow field These choices represent the best I have in the same rough focal range. Technically I have a Meade Research Grade Ortho at 10.5mm which is super-sharp but too different in every other way to make a fair comparison, and 'widefield' EPs like the TV Ethos 8mm and Pentax XWs; these are not a good match either, as they simply present the view differently. I suspect I will come to have a favourite presentation between the Zeiss and the Pentax (as I have with the Pentax and the Ethos) but it's hard to make fair like-for-like comparison. So, the results; Takahashi: This eyepiece is very familiar to me and did not disappoint. Vega was a 'normal sized' sparkling diamond with a slightly cool blue tone, no ghosts but a hint of flare. Albireo was reproduced with a clean high-contrast split, although the colours were actually a bit muted. This came as a surprise as I haven't tried this particular EP with this particular object before; I suspect the Tak has an inherent cool tone which was equalising the two partners more than it should really. The Milky Way showed dozens of tiny points; averted vision showed dozens more. The full moon came through nicely; rills and craters were well-defined at the terminator, but the flare issue did return somewhat. Tal: I love this eyepiece; since I first loaded it up I knew it was special, even as its many downsides frustrate the hell out of me. Vega was notably sharper and better-focused than the Tak, a diamond yes but no longer 'sparkling', no ghosting or reflections. Albireo sprang out with superb contrast and confirmed the lack of colour in the Tak; none was in evidence here, with a golden/aqua textbook pairing. The Milky Way didn't reveal much with averted vision however, and I noted the field curvature was totally eliminating some faint stars nearer the field edges, I feel absolute light transmission may be slighter lower in this eyepiece. The moon showed some flaring, in-line with the Tak's performance, although the terminator showed a fraction less sharpness and contrast. This is interesting given the superior performance on star-like objects. Celestron: A surprisingly poor performer in this lofty contest, given how well I regarded it previously and the fact it stomps on all of my non-premium EPs with ease. I suspect this is simply proof that coating technology has improved in the 20-30yrs since this eyepiece was stamped out. Vega did not focus as well, with a slightly enlarged Airy disc and some flarepoints surrounding it. Albireo was faithfully reproduced with decent colour reproduction, but the gap between the partners was less well-defined as in the others, something not accounted for by reduced power. The Milky Way again showed fewer stars than the Tak, the same number as the Tal Plossl really... perhaps it's a Plossl thing. The moon to my great surprise showed actual CA around the rim; this can only be from the eyepiece as no others caused this to appear, and a very large amount of flaring. I still like this eyepiece as a top-end Plossl, but this is a very tough contest. Baader: I always find this eyepiece vaguely boring... almost like a piece of furniture or an honest but uninspiring politician. It does it's job, not well enough to remember but not badly enough to remark upon. Vega showed a similar view to the Tal, with a sharp, bright point free from flare or 'sparkle'. Albireo came through with typical ortho excellence, very sharp with deep contrast between the two, the colour was reproduced but in a flatter, less engaging way somehow. The Milky Way was a strong showing, with many, many tiny stars well-defined and averted vision revealing many more. Transmission was better in the Ortho. The moon also was a good showing with the lowest flare so far (nearly none) and sharp contrast on the terminator. I can best sum up these scores thus; The Champ I tried both of the Zeiss eyepieces with the same diagonal and scope as the others; identical performance was seen on both, they truly are matched in every way. Before I go on, let me just say that I do not have "New Toy Euphoria" or some kind of sunken-cost blindness you see on a lot of reviews where someone has spent a lot of money and is swayed towards the positive. I paid a stupidly low amount for these from a surplus store that clearly didn't know what they had, after about a five minute off-the-cuff search, not expecting to find any. I was totally prepared to sling these on AB&S for a huge markup if they weren't better than what I already had. So.... do they deserve the praise heaped upon them elsewhere? Are these Zeiss surgical eyepieces actually that far ahead of the already excellent field of premium eyepieces astronomers have to choose from? Are they really 'heartstopping'? In a word. ...yep. I confess to feeling some measure of disbelief when looking through the Zeiss at Vega. The first signs began as I found focus; the star resolved to a point as good as any other eyepiece in the test, with the double-double clearly visible nearby. As I went to test for astigmatism by rocking in and out of focus, something happened that has never happened with any eyepiece I've ever used. I hadn't actually achieved focus, not really. Even out of focus, this EP was a match for a Baader Classic Ortho... as I racked further out carefully, I was able to hone in on an image of Vega that I spent at least five minutes staring at just to comprehend. The star was utterly tiny, finally I understood the meaning of 'diffraction limited'... it is hard to estimate such small scales, but I would estimate an illuminated area around half that of the BCO. It was truly profound, the light from the star was brightly coloured blue and almost too sharp to look at. Finding true focus was a challenge to my visual acuity, the point of absolute clarity took a number of attempts to find but once found and locked in.... All I could say was "Oh.... wow...." I swung across to Albireo and was treated to the finest view of this pair in my memory. The division between the stars was utterly crisp, a word I now associate with this eyepiece; bright, hard points with a gulf of actual deep velvet black between. The stars were even tinier than Vega due to the lesser magnitude, but still shone through with the full intensity of their colours. I spent several happy minutes just gazing at a double I've spent hours on already. Even at this modest power, the stars were as cleanly resolved from one another as with any eyepiece I can remember... I suspect the Zeiss will barlow very well. With the sky worsening I quickly dragged myself away from the star to a random spot of the Milky Way and was again blown away, this time by transmission, which easily equalled the Ortho but with a sharper, crisper view. The stars retained the same miniscule proportions down to the limits of vision, which I suspect would be close to the theoretical limit of the scope. It was at this point it struck me that another writer had been absolutely correct; it really is like looking out of an open window. There are no distortions, no aberrations, no geometric inconsistencies in the view whatsoever which would remind your brain you are viewing a telescopic image. The stars were simply.... there. In a way an Ethos cannot deliver to me, as I am always aware that this view is artificial... with the Zeiss I was able to forget this fact, indeed, the eyepiece seemed to make the telescope just disappear. Spectacular. The Moon was the last target and a rewarding one. No flare, anywhere, with the exception of the atmospheric skyglow from the moon itself. The terminator was hard and dark, again equalling the Ortho on test but, that word again, more crisp somehow. Zero CA was evident in the image, and as I looked around I noticed something I had not been able to see in any other other eyepieces... the star near the moon's position. About three 'moon widths' away was a medium-low brightness yellow star which had been hidden by glare in all other eyepieces on test. The Zeiss had controlled flare so well that this star was now clearly visible alongside the moon. Now I am not a great fan of lunar observation, I know many are, but I could see myself spending many hours with the moon and a binoviewer just admiring the clarity of the features, the depth of shadow and the sharp highlights of crater walls... even at medium power these features reached out of the field to me, in an almost three-dimensional manner. I now cannot wait to try them with my 8" SCT, and see if I can put that transmission to work on DSO hunting All in all, these are easily the most technically pure oculars I can imagine, certainly that I have used. The view is simply what your telescope delivers, unadulterated. The price of this is a relatively narrow field of view, a mere 50degrees or so, although 100% of this field is usable unlike the Plossls on test which lost substantial sharpness further out. I mentally compared this to my favourite, the Pentax XW14, and had to conclude that the Zeiss had higher contrast and sharper detail, although the Pentax is very, very close and delivers it in a much wider field. That said, picking up an equal to one of the finest ocular series ever produced for £60 cannot be sniffed at From now on, this will be my planetary and small-DSO eyepiece; I can think of no other I'd rather use. I shall keep the wider-field oculars in my case for more immersive, more enveloping experiences of space; but for sheer perfection and freedom from shifting distortions, the Zeiss take the crown. If you can find some of these, I strongly advise you go for it. If you have a nice, sharp scope to put them in I doubt very much you will be disappointed.
  2. 4 points
    Well my week with Olly is drawing to a close, and it has been wonderful to watch him working on my data. I take no credit for this image apart from capture, the rest is all olly. Thank you sir. This is a four panel mosaic, this time I got mosaic wizard to work properly, image is 7500 pixels wide. FSQ106, reduced to 380mm, QSI6120, 100 minutes per panel Lum, in 10 minute subs, with the data from my other mosaic to fill in the core region. RGB was from my SX H35, 90 minutes per filter, with the Ha taken again from the other mosaic, two panels at 30 minutes. Here is a crop to show off Olly's superb processing. Huw
  3. 3 points
    Use a file I made a custom plate out of Delrin that has two captive nuts for mine. I screw my plate to the AstroTrac and then screw the clamp to the captive nuts on the plate. Another option is to get a back-to-back/bi-directional Arca Swiss clamp and attach a short Arca Swiss plate to the head... (Search eBay for bi-directional Arca Swiss for an example)
  4. 2 points
    hi everybody. this is my latest attempt to image m42, it was shot without the coma corrector because it's lacking a few mm to achieve the right spacing needed. specs are 38 x 30 seconds,iso 800, no bias, flats or darks (forgot to take them). i used a layer mask to try to control the core. i think i overdid the processing, colors look like painted. please share what you think and tips to get it better, i'll give try reprocessing it later. thank you
  5. 2 points
    If you log your observations by writing, I wonder if a Dictaphone would be useful for on the fly observations... Later to be written...I find that the last thing I want to do in the wee hours of the morning is to be writing in a notebook or bathed in the glow of an led screen before shut eye....
  6. 2 points
    Faff?? I have often observed for two hours + without ever leaving the comfort of my el cheapo reclined lawn chair. The chair has been heavily pimped out with a set of rubber wheeled castors which allow me 360° of movement without having to get up to reposition. Each to their own, but in my experience, a Parallelogram mount and recliner has proven to be by far the most enjoyable mounting solution for large aperture (straight through) binoculars. Just sayin!
  7. 2 points
    Dont be put off by solitary observing at remote locations, it can have plenty of advantages. You can fairly promptly decide to head off somewhere when the weather is good and you have the time to do so, it can become engaging, adventurous and absorbing. Best not to have all your eggs in one basket, there is a degree of trial and error in experiencing different places, where there's maybe a probability of unwelcome disturbances. In my location I have my favourite haunt(s) another which is most likely to be fine and others which can be OK but would prefer the company of other amateur astronomers. Though yes as mentioned when on your own, you wouldn't want a flat car battery at 3am in the middle of nowhere.
  8. 1 point
    if your like me and like to see colour in the moon, show us your pics. heres a few of mine to get us started. thanks for looking ,clear skys charl.
  9. 1 point
    Hi Everyone, Bristol based backyard astronomer here. Just thought I would say hello. I've been browsing the forums for a month or so picking up plenty of useful info and thought it was time I introduced myself. I have a 4" refractor which i use mainly form lunar, solar and planetary observing, but would ideally love to branch out into AP with a decent reflector. So i will probably be pestering you all from some advice from time to time Regards Pete
  10. 1 point
    Thanks to FunkyKoval35 I now have the correct designation for this target! I like to think of it as a great rift running through the Soul - This perspective certainly gives that feel. I've been working on this for an age it would seem. The weather in Spain has not been kind at all and I didn't gather as much data as I had planned as I'd given up hope and lost the will to live. All comments welcome. IC1871 is part of the Soul nebula (IC1848). Located in the constellation of Cassiopeia it is thought to be approximately 7500 light years from Earth. This is an emission nebula, so responds well to narrowband filters. Details Mount: Avalon LInear Fast Reverse Telescope: Orion Optics ODK10 Camera: QSI683 ws-g with 3nm Ha, OIII and SII filters. 22x1800s Ha 17x1800s OIII 14x1800s SII Totalling 25 hours and 30 minutes. You can see a higher res version here
  11. 1 point
    That's kinda what I was thinking but shouldn't have to paint it if it's already galvanized. If you mean painted black steel angle iron - you'd have to weld on some flat iron (with hand drilled holes) to have a way to mount it. I know how to lay a bead but not planning to waste time on that right now since the manufactured stuff is made specifically for this purpose. Besides, if I stopped to do the welding - that would give you more of a chance to catch up...
  12. 1 point
    Hi, sounds like he has a lot of enthusiasm. Telescopes from toy shops would be a good way to ruin it - so it's great you took the time to sign up and ask here. I guess it depends on your budget really. Simple to use, best value for money, sounds like a reflector on a dobsonian mount to me (especially with the red dot finder - you line up the red dot on the finder attachment (bit on top of the main scope) and bingo it's there in the eyepiece of the main scope). There's this scope which is pretty good value http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html (£130), compact and easy to use and should give good views of Jupiter, Saturn, the moon and brighter deep space objects. For a bit less you can get it's baby brother (£86) http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html or cheaper still (£39) http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/celestron-firstscope-76mm-telescope.html and for a bit more (£175) you can get something bigger http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-150p-dobsonian.html which will collect more light and show more detail on planets etc. All those links are from the FLO site, and they also list a range of scopes suitable for beginners http://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes.html
  13. 1 point
    Yep very nice, well done! Your added notes are also a nice touch. I guess you could take a photo then make a clean sketch inside, it just depends on what the object was? I'm not sure how that would work to be honest? There certainly isn't any rules to break when astro sketching, just do whatever you enjoy. I dont invert my sketches although I did try it when I first started. If you do go down that route then try and be as accurate as possible and use sharp pencils so you get little pin point stars and then tidy the sketch up using Photoshop or Gimp maybe?
  14. 1 point
    Very nice first sketch. Couldn't see this conjunction from here due to clouds, alas
  15. 1 point
    You say you're no artist and you don't have to be. Rough eyepiece sketches help you to focus more intently on the object being observed. Very few observers make works of art while sketching in low light and at the same time controlling a telescope. The important thing is that the rough sketch contains valuable information that can be translated into a cleaned up drawing later or into notes, or both. I used to record everything in written form but for the last ten years I've used mainly sketching to record my observations. The reason being that it's easier for me to look a my drawings to refresh my memory than to read copious notes. A picture speaks a thousand words! Please don't be put off by your artistic skills, they will certainly improve over time. The most important thing is that they should be as truthful as possible. Everyone appreciates a truthful observational sketch but art for the sake of it will have little value. Mike
  16. 1 point
    OK, as an extra special own birthday come Christmas gift to myself I've bitten the bullet and gone for even more light gathering power with a Skwatcher Startravel 120 OTA. Got from Rother Valley Optics, and should arrive on Monday. Only downside is I am away for work next week and won't get a chance to test it out till I return home next Thursday. So I'm hoping by then we actually get some clear skies for some observations! Here's hoping!
  17. 1 point
    Don't worry John, I'm still committed to the cause [emoji3]
  18. 1 point
    You need to work backwards: The moon is half a degree. To get it all in the eyepiece in use has the deliver therefore 1/2 degree view. 1/2 is nice and easy in a way. Your eyepiece will have a defined Field of View, on Plossl's usually 50, on BST's it is 60, ES82 it is (strangely ) 82 degrees. So to get 1/2 degree when looking through it the magnification has to be 2x the eyepiece FoV, so: Plossl = 100x, BST = 120x, ES82 = 160X. So what magnification did you have with the barlow and 8mm ?
  19. 1 point
    Hello and welcome to the forum ! Astrophotography is quite a specialised field and the equipment needs are really quite different to visual astronomy. If you are really keen to follow the astrophotography path then I'd suggest the book "Make Every Photon Count" by Steve Richards who is a member of this forum: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html I know it's rather dull to recommend research rather than equipment but you are right, it's a minefield and very easy to invest in something that "seemed like a good idea" but is later regretted. Deep sky photography, as least initially, seems to be best carried out with a small scope (say an 80mm ED refractor) on a largish mount (eg: HEQ5) for maximum stability. For visual observing the above might not satisfy for too long though - hence my comment about different equipment needs.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    Looks like that image has got posteriorization to me i.e. at some stage it has been saved/converted to an 8-bit image. NigelM
  22. 1 point
    Phil, the issue is mate, I can't wait. I'm dying to buy and get out there lol ... I'm not really rushing in to my decision on buying my first scope but at least I know I've made the correct choice which everyone seems to agree one way or another Astrofest is always a tricky one, I might be able to get a discount on the kit that I'm looking to buy OR not. I say, flip everything, lets get out there and do our Thang
  23. 1 point
    Thanks for the reassurance guys, from what I've already seen on here, everyone seems a friendly and helpful bunch anyway. I totally agree with you about the only stupid question is the one you don't ask! Jaffa Cakes are on me! Rob
  24. 1 point
    You can experiment with filters such as variable polarising filters or a Baader Neodymium filter which do help the contrast a bit. The best bet though is just to observe at different phases of the moon. As the terminator moves across the surface, different craters and other features are highlighted so they are much easier to observe. For example, this is the moon tonight This is the moon on 3rd Nov, totally different features highlighted
  25. 1 point
    use hydrogen....what could possibly go wrong
  26. 1 point
    And yet we all bitch and moan when we can't get fast internet coverage. It won't bother me, mainly because my view of them will no doubt be obscured by clouds
  27. 1 point
    My 40mm Aero works very well in all my scopes (f10-f7.5) as low power eyepiece. From the reviews I've, 40mm Aero is a tad better than the 30mm you have, and the focal lengths make good compnions in your scopes. As others has already mentioned, MV 40mm is a beast in size, for me with OCD in eyepiece size and weight, it's a no brainer.
  28. 1 point
    No one has them in stock yet by the time they are there will be new ones out lol Mark
  29. 1 point
    I have owned the TMB Paragon 40mm. The Aero is reportedly a clone. I really regret selling the Paragon. It was a really comfortable EP. More so than the LVW42 which I bought later. It gave superb views in both my C8 and in my 80mm F/6. It doesn't really make sense to use this in an F/5 scope due to the large exit pupil you get. I also have the MV 24mm 68 deg, and really like that too. However, the 40mm MV is rather a beast, whereas the Paragon was rather light
  30. 1 point
    Hi Andy, Welcome to the Lounge, wishing you clear skies.
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    Hi welcome to SGL from Pete in Bedfordshire
  33. 1 point
    I've not posted much lately as the weather has been pretty awful & my imaging time has been limited to short spells. However I used the time I had to refine the pointing & polar alignment of the mount in the hope of improving tracking. I took a test shot this evening of M27 at only 35 degrees altitude & turned the auto guiding off. I wanted to see how the mount tracked for 2 minutes on a target then I could use this as the basis to continue refining the tracking to eventually get to 4 or 5 minutes unguided. I've posted the 2 minute test below which consist of 15 2 minute subs stacked. Let me know what you think.
  34. 1 point
    if my wife spotted all that dust in space......out would come the broom......a women cleaning with a vengeance.....
  35. 1 point
    Vicky has big problems reading as she has to stop her mouth moving and fingers typing!
  36. 1 point
    I'll try harder next time lol did this mean OK I get a punch at next weeks meet off Paul Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk
  37. 1 point
    Alma the Leica I have is not the Asph and costs approx £320 including the 1.25" adapter, the main body is also a very handy 2" diameter
  38. 1 point
    ........at least their view count will now increase?
  39. 1 point
    star wheel I think is a plannisphere, they are great
  40. 1 point
    I do use compacts for astro imaging but they are still fitted with the original lens. CHDK modifications give canon cameras some extra flexibility if you could successfully remove the built in lens. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ
  41. 1 point
    Hi all, Decided to reprocess my M31 data this time with pixinsight and hopefully improved processing skills. Have dialled down the processing to give a more natural look as opposed to the heavily coloured previous version. Clear skies. Sarge.
  42. 1 point
    Have we found someone near by to help you out?!?! I hope so. James
  43. 1 point
    Used to drive an hour to my dark site, but ended up living there.... Priorities skew-whiff, methinks...
  44. 1 point
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Greetings an welcome to SGL, great place with great people clear skies john
  47. 1 point
    A couple of photos showing two of three Atik 460EX astro caneras with Asahi Takumar 105mm f2.8 lenses mounted in 3D printed plates arranged to rotate on an aluminium tube. The remote focussing mechanism is also shown for one lens (will be repeated for the other two).
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    From what I've seen from my friend Yves Van den Broek the Star 71 might well be the one. Of course, if you sold a couple of kids and a kidney then you should obviously buy a Baby Q Tak! (I was lucky. I had a lot of kids and a superfluous kidney!)* lly *Should anyone from social services be reading, this is what is known as a joke.
  50. 1 point
    I was using the ES 20mm / 100 in my 12" F/5.3 dobsonian and it worked pretty well with that. I could just see a little coma out towards the edges of the field stop but the scope produces that, rather than the eyepiece.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.