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_banner_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

Alkaid

Members
  • Content Count

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

282 Excellent

5 Followers

About Alkaid

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    City based Lunar & Planetary observing, with an interest in the Messier objects when on trips to darker skies.
  • Location
    Leeds, West Yorkshire
  1. Not the same as the black one then? I thought they only changed the paint.... Just had a look, a few sites are saying 8kg for the bare tube.
  2. Awesome. Makes my C8 look like a coke can!
  3. I don't think that's quite right? A diffraction limited optic must have a minimum strehl of 0.8 (80%) and this is the minimum benchmark for the manufacturer. A scope delivering 68% or 0.68 would not come to focus?? The 130/900 clearly does actually work and delivers good images, so it definitely has a strehl of at least 0.80.
  4. I wouldn’t get too hung up on spherical vs parabolic....the small TAL-1 uses a spherical mirror and produces excellent images.
  5. I wouldn't class the '102 as a telescope for imaging though.....however for widefield visual it is a great little scope with the power level at around x20.
  6. Depends how sensitive to chromatic abberation you are, but all achromats exhibit the fringing. Some worse than others, the lower the F ratio then the worse it is. My little 102 at F5 is quite objectionable on the moon....but at low power on star fields it’s very pleasing.
  7. I had a 6” f5 newt, it was a very nice scope but I missed sitting down behind the scope like you do with a frac.
  8. That looks great! I've no experience of these, please let us know how the view compares with your Mak? (When the clouds go away anyway! )
  9. The AZ4 suits the 102 beautifully. Here’s a pic.
  10. This year we were in Galloway Forest Park, Scotland. Lovely place. Sounds like I should have headed south for Astro though...
  11. I get maybe 2-3 deep sky trips per year. One of these opportunities is an annual summer camping trip, either to Scotland or down to Devon / Cornwall. We just returned from this trip and I got just one night out of seven....same last year too. I recently downgraded the size of my ‘camping’ scope as I couldn’t justify the space taken up for just one clear night!
  12. Great write up, I went through quite a few scopes and always thought I’d end up with one of these until a C8 came up beforehand. 8” aperture really is a sweet spot and the ease of use and storage of your 200P must really hit the spot. Thanks for sharing your experiences!
  13. Looks alright, not bang on, but not out enough to warrant adjustment. Get a bright star in a high power eyepiece. Rack the focuser in a bit, then back out. Does the star evenly expand and does it contract back down to a nice point? If it does, collimation is ‘in’. For ‘out’ look for the star expanding & contracting unevenly, on one side. It’s easy to get hung up on this. If you’re targeting small lunar features or planetary, then yes it’s important, especially in an F5 scope. But if you’re using your 250 for DSO’s and sky sweeping, it’ll be absolutely fine at low power, even if it’s a little bit out. Have fun!
  14. Unfortunately....no. The vibration would render the set-up completely un-useable. I’m afraid that the EQ5 would be the absolute minimum in your case. Not the news you wanted to hear, but will save you frustration in the long run. EQ5’s come up quite often 2nd hand, as it’s the summer time right now you could hold out until one comes up?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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