Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cunhaval

  1. Croeso - don't think you will be disappointed with the scope - love mine. BST explorers certainly offer the best "bang for your buck" - and don't feel that you have to buy half a dozen to "get a set". 90% of my observing is with only two eps - 9mm & 32mm. I would, however, encourage replacing the standard Skywatcher barlow (which is poor) with almost any other if you intend to use a barlow. A TAL 2x is outstanding value for money.
  2. Cunhaval


    Hi, and welcome to the lounge.
  3. Hi, Steve, and welcome to the lounge!
  4. Welcome to SGL - enjoy
  5. Hi, Dave & welcome - from yet another Dave
  6. Hi,Steve Welcome to SGL, and the very best of luck with your ambition. And remember - the images you now admire are produced by people who started where you currently are! A big budget is useful (to say the least ), but even more useful is knowledge - and this is definitely the place to acquire it!
  7. Fair reviews there of a sometimes (IMV), unfairly maligned mount. It's all a question of what you want the mount to do, and like most things in life, how much you are prepared to pay. OK, it's not suitable for serious imaging (especially DSO) - but NO Alt-Az mount is - though it is fine for DSLR lunar and/or webcam work. There are excellent images to be seen here on SGL. Its 1.75" steel tripod is not as steady as the 2" version to be found on an NEQ-6. Fine - so don't extend the legs fully, and weigh it down with a small sandbag on the ep tray, or suspend a bag of rocks (old photographer's trick!) from the tripod. The old aluminium-legged version (now confined, I think, to the second-hand market) is less desirable. Don't overload it with the OTA - stick to small to medium maks, scts, short tube 'fracs or small newts. Consider tube length as much as weight - so avoid long tubes like a Tal 100rs, or a SW 150PL (though I've used a short tube 150 SW newt on mine with no problems at all). The GoTo database is indeed more than a little optimistic - half of the stuff in that database would require a tube at least twice the size of anything you could conceivably put on the mount to see - but surely better too much than too little? The point I'm making is that for the money, and if you want GoTo capability, this mount is unbeatable. Look at the alternatives - EQ3-2Pro is more than twice the price, HEQ-5 four times, and NEQ-6 more than five times the price. Admittedly, the latter two in particular may well be all the mount you will EVER need, especially if you get into serious imaging, but if all you want is a decent mount, with GoTo, which is reasonably portable, and most importantly, won't break the bank, this is the one! Just read the posts on this forum about setting it up, take your time, and you will have a capable mount (with some limitations - they ALL do!) Of course, if you can live without powered tracking and GoTo, an even better buy would be the similar-looking and priced, but sturdier, AZ-4, but that's a whole different story. OK, Skywatcher, pm me for my address, so you can put the cheque in the post! :D
  8. Excellent advice there from Jon. The scope is a cracker, and an EQ3 or EQ5 would do nicely, but the CG5 (EQ5 equivalent) is rather better built than either.
  9. Welcome to SGL - don't we just love birthdays!
  10. Hi Rick, and welcome to the Lounge.
  11. After you've entered the time (with no deductions), the handset will ask you "Daylight Saving?" - choose yes. If it is still off, I would recheck your lat/long coordinates and make sure that you have entered them as degrees and minutes, rather than (as some websites will give you), degrees and decimals. Also check that you have entered the date in US, not UK, format - i.e. it should be month/day/year, and not day/month/year.
  12. Superb scope for the money - love mine! Outstanding on lunar and planetary, excellent on doubles and any DSO which isn't too diffuse (too wide) to fit into the Mak's relatively narrow field of view. And frankly, there aren't that many which are so big. Very, very, good contrast - you would have to spend an awful lot of money on a very expensive apo 'frac to beat it. Only real weakness is the mount (if we are talking about the Alt-Az GoTo), and even then, care with setting up (don't extend the legs fully, and sandbag on the ep tray) will overcome most of its less than rock-solid tendencies. Close to the ideal for a starter scope, though I have to admit, probably beaten by a 200p dob for a similar-ish price. But there again, both have their individual strengths and weaknesses.
  13. Waaaaaaay overpriced - but good news for the seller. eBay strikes again
  14. And bear in mind that Skywatcher/Celestron are essentially the same company (Synta).
  15. Hi, Paul, and welcome to SGL. Rather than eBay's (sometimes flaky) prices, you might like to look here - U.K. Astronomy Buy & Sell And if imaging is your goal, I would very much second the "Making Every Photon Count" suggestion - BEFORE you start spending
  16. Hi there, and welcome to the lounge.
  17. Cunhaval


    Hi Ronny, and welcome to the forum.
  18. Hi, and welcome to the forum. Don't think you'd regret a 127 Mak - I certainly didn't!
  19. Cunhaval

    Hello all

    Hi Vaughn, and welcome to the lounge.
  20. Hi, and welcome to SGL.
  21. Cunhaval

    New member

    Hi Dondino, and welcome to the lounge.
  22. Hi Rob Changed to an 8x50 RACI and never regretted it. Mine happens to be the TS version, but it is exactly the same as the Skywatcher, which in turn is the same (or very similar) to the Orion version. The 6x30 supplied with the scope is OK, but an 8x50 RACI is much better! And no more straining your neck to see through it when the scope is near the zenith. As long as my 127 stays on the GoTo mount, I haven't bothered to fit a Telrad (no real need if you are not star hopping), but I'm intending to transfer the scope to an AZ-4, so I think I'll fit one then (retaining the RACI as well). Going to look a bit of a monster on a 127 Mak, though
  23. Have to say that I agree with the UKABS poster. This business of "paypal as a gift" has gotten out of hand. And I do wonder if all purchasers realise how little comeback it leaves them on the occasions when it goes wrong. If a seller doesn't want Paypal's (admittedly excessive) transaction fees - then specify cash on collection or (fully!) cleared cheque only. "Paypal as a gift" is the online equivalent of putting a bundle of tenners in an unregistered envelope, sending it, and hoping for the best. If you wouldn't do the latter, why would you do the former? I didn't much like it in the bad old days when some shops used to try to charge you extra for payment by credit card (to cover their own credit card fees), and I'm similarly unimpressed by "paypal as a gift" or "cover my fees". Don't misunderstand me - I have occasionally done the "gift" myself in the past without problems, and the few reported problems say a lot for the integrity of people who are likely to be selling astro gear. But that doesn't mean the practice is safe or sensible.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.