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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

John

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    35,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13,040 Excellent

About John

  • Rank
    Perfectly Normal Beast
  • Birthday 21/02/60

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North Somerset, United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

4,684 profile views
  1. Interesting that. I'd kind of achieved that around 5 years ago but the roller coaster / merry-go-round kept on running I wonder to what extent discussions on forums actually fuel these fairground devices Eg: I thought I had some fine diagonals until I read the report from Bill Paolini on the things ..... (I realise that I'm no angel in this matter )
  2. As said earlier in this thread, with your scope I think around 70x or 80x would be the optimum for viewing Jupiter. The 50mm aperture of the scope will limit the amount of magnification that can usefully be used and Jupiter usually looks better at a little less than the maximum that the scope will cope with.
  3. These simulations are useful to work out what the field of view will look like and potential apparent size of objects but in terms of the details of objects that will be visible they can't really be relied on because that is determined by a set of factors including the seeing conditions, local light pollution, optical quality, observer experience etc which the simulation can't simulate of course.
  4. My diagonal herd comprises: - 2" Tele Vue Everbright Enhanced Aluminum (on the ED120) - As above but the dielectric version (on the Vixen ED102SS) - 2" Astro Physics MaxBright Dielectric (on the LZOS 130 F/9) - Baader T2 Zeiss Prism (on the Tak FC100 F/9) I've given up trying to see any differences between them to be honest with you. There probably are some but nothing obvious to my eye If I had to live with just one I think it would be the Astro Physics but thats probably mostly because I've always wanted to own something by AP and the diagonal is all that I've had, thus far !
  5. I think Baader have really minimised the effect with this product but my understanding is that it's inevitable to some degree. It's probably only going to show on the brightest of objects and then you may have to look for it. If the fully corrected image is a priority then this is probably as good as it will get from any manufacturer currently and I can fully see why you went for it.
  6. Ah, yes I can see there are slight differences in the casing design. The one you have uses an amici prism design and has a clear aperture of 31mm wheras mine uses a standard prism with a 35mm clear aperture. Baader stuff is great but it can be confusing working out which componant is which ! It will be interesting to see if you witness the amici spike effect.
  7. Just to clarify, what I mean by this is that I don't understand all of it. I wasn't implying that anyone else is pretending. I'm sure that some folks do have a very thorough understanding of what lies behind what we see at the eyepiece
  8. The picture looks just like the one I have and use with my Tak 100. Mine shows an upright image but left & right reversed Maybe there is more than one version that looks the same ?
  9. Is this the one you are trying Mike ?: http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-2-90-degree-amici-erecting-prism.html
  10. I've used wide, ultra wide and hyper wide eyepieces extensively and compared them with eyepieces with a more regular field of view. I have not noticed that the wider angle eyepieces have reduced contrast on either deep sky objects or the moon and planets over their narrower field equivalents. Sometimes using an eyepiece with a wider field of view can improve contrast because you can get the same true field at a higher magnification which helps to darken the background sky making dso's stand out a little more. I do try and keep the largest exit pupil created to 6mm or less which I think suits my 50+ year old eye and moderately light polluted back garden better. I don't pretend to understand the maths and physics behind all this though - I've just looked to try as many combinations of eyepieces and scopes on as wide variety of objects as possible over the years and have learned which combinations produce results that are satisfying Maybe there are little imps inside the eyepieces creating the images and more imps in widefield eyepieces ?
  11. I'll take the optical quality every time and handle the (for me minor) issue of the reversed left and right. I've sort of got used to it over the 35 years I've been using scopes with diagonals. I'd probably get confused if I changed to a fully corrected image in the main scope ! Also I can't see the point in using a top end objective and eyepiece and having something in between that is less than that
  12. I've no personal experience of such an instrument but here is a thread from the Cloudynights forum on a C8 binoscope build: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/500998-building-a-celestron-c8-binoscope-with-matsumoto-ems/ and from the same poster, a C11 binoscope project: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/503466-celestron-c11-binoscope-with-matsumoto-ems/
  13. I failed to read the inscription on the drawing and thought it was made with Mike's Tak 100 It's a super drawing even with the FS 128mm but there was a clear inch more fine aperture than I was thinking ! I'll be interested see what my LZOS 130 makes of M13 later in the year. I'll be happy indeed if the view is anything like Mikes drawing
  14. You can certainly get an 8" scope that weighs less than 30kg even then on a mount but it would require quite a lot of space when packed. In fact my 12" dobsonian weighs less than 30kg but I certainly don't think it's anywhere near airline portable. Most folks have separate scopes for home use and travelling. The most portable and compact 8" scope that I've owned was probably the Celestron Nexstar 8 SCT. The scope and mount together weigh around 11kg. Here is a pic of one in use so you get an idea of size:
  15. If you can find a used 35mm Celestron Ultima or 25mm Orion Ultrascopic (both now out of production) they would deliver just over a 1 degree true field with the OMC140. They are 1.25" eyepieces. Whether the additional .2 of a degree that moving to the 2" eyepiece size (and a diagonal to match) would give is questionable, perhaps ?