John

Got NGC 2419 and Comet C/2019 L3 Atlas tonight. Both quite close in the sky but not in the same low power field of view. The comet was quite a bit brighter than the distant globular cluster and easy to spot with the 8 inch newtonian I was using. NGC 2419 somewhat less distinct but there is a chain of stars that lead to it, which helps pinpoint the spot.

I guess I need a couple - one smaller and wider and one larger and longer.

That is not how many I've got though

I was very lucky in that my secondary school (a comprehensive) had a small dome with a nice 8.5 inch newtonian, a small planetarium in a shed and an active school astronomy club. So when I was 11 / 12 I was able to develop further the interest in space that the Apollo 11 mission coverage had kindled a couple of years earlier. I would have had a school blazer back then as well !.

Prior to using the school scope, my only optical aid was mum and dads 8x30 binoculars.

2 minutes ago, pjsmith_6198 said:

Besides comet A1 Leonard, comets 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and C/2019 L3 (ATLAS) are brightening and are in easy to find positions. Both near Castor/Pollux but not in Gemini itself.  I last observed them 2 weeks ago and they were both easy to see even with the Moon near full.  

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is in the same finder scope FOV as Iota Cancri which is a nice blue and gold double star .  This is the "Winter Albireo".   The observed magnitude for 67P from theskylive.com/comets is 8.6.    This is the comet the Rosetta mission visited

Comet C/2019 L3 (ATLAS) is in Lynx very close to the globular cluster NGC 2419 - the Intergalactic Wanderer.  The observed magnitude from theskylive.com/comets is 9.8.   L3 ATLAS is much easier to see than NGC 2419.  It's a short hop from Castor and the hop goes through NGC 2419's position.   NGC 2419 is challenging.  To make it easier to find, there are 2 fairly bright field stars in the EP FOV.  They point directly at NGC 2419.   
Phil

Thanks Phil.

I managed to see NGC 2419 with my 100mm refractor earlier this year. It would be good to pay it another visit and if there is a comet in the same area, so much the better

14 minutes ago, Ian McCallum said:

By getting this second hand SW Evostar 120, I hope to have cured my refractor itch! 🤞🤐😄

That will help a lot with your achromatic refractor itch. Hope you don't develop an ED doublet / Fluorite itch

I've owned the ES 20mm 100 for a while. It was pretty good. From what I've read I think the APM might be a little better though so, for the same price, I would go for a new APM over a used ES.

I ended up with the Ethos 21.

2 hours ago, chiltonstar said:

Unfiltered. When I tried with a borrowed H Alpha filter, the attenuation was a bit too much bearing in mind the small aperture.

 

Isn't H Beta the filter of choice for the HH neb is is that a mistype ?

Great report and results Chris

I've not waited up late enough for Sirius to be on view as yet this winter so I've that pleasure still to come, I hope.

To get the Horsehead AND the Pup in the same session is pretty special

Assuming that your 32mm plossl is a 1.25 inch eyepiece, 52 degrees is the largest apparent field of view that a 1.25" eyepiece of 32mm focal length can have. The field stop (which defines the edge of the field of view) can't physically be any bigger within the constraints of the eyepiece barrel internal diameter.

So I suspect the issue is with the way that Stellarium is representing the view. I don't use that feature though so I'm not sure what the problem could be

28 minutes ago, Ags said:

@John Just wondering as I don't think I understand your point, wouldn't a UHC filter bring out the lime green in basically anything?

 

The Astronomik UHC isn't too bad with regarding messing around with star colours. I found the same with their O-III as well. I used the UHC on The Owl Nebula and the Crab Nebula last night as well as M42 and the filter didn't tint either of those green.

Quick look at Jupiter and Saturn with the 100mm refractor, before the cloud comes over.

The Great Red Spot is just past the central meridian but its seems really diminished compared to a few years back. I really had to look quite hard to make it out clearly.

Seeing is quite good compared with last night and a few other nights recently. 180x working well on Jupiter.

2 hours ago, Kon said:

.... I also noted that your report is over 4 years old without further references 😟...... but good things come to those who wait 😃.

I hope so but the skies do have to be exceptional here to give me a chance. I've glimpsed it a couple of times since then but only a couple.

I love Jeremy Perez's description of this target :

" Really, it's like trying to see a little bit of nothing with a little bit of less than nothing resting over it "

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

Oh and in Car terms in the UK, the Austin Allegro is a Classic Car.....

 

Especially the "Vanden Plas" model

Back on topic, I used to have a Celestron C8+ which gave me some of the best views of Saturn that I've ever had. Many consider the Celestron Ultima 8 the best of that line though:

Nice report !

Apart from the Horsehead, I've not had much success with my Astronomik Hb filter. I must try a bit harder with it.

With regards to the Horsehead, I've only just managed to see it a couple of times with my 12 inch dob on the very darkest nights I ever get here. It is probably the hardest and least distinct DSO that I have ever observed. Here is my report when I 1st managed it:

Some really quite expensive focusers have bearings that leave marks on the drawtube, eg: Moonlite focusers. At least the marks that the Skywatcher plastic strips leave on the drawtube usually rub off quite easily. With the Moonlite focusers (and some others) the marks are worn into the anodising and can't be removed.

Last night with the 12 inch dob I managed to see 4 of Uranus's moons - that's a "first" for me.

Later my first proper session on M42 this winter season. It looked stunning with the 12 inch. I used the UHC filter to get more extension of the "wings" of nebulosity and that bought out the lime green and pinkish tints in the nebula. Without the filter I used 300x plus to search amongst the billows of nebulosity in the Huygenian region of the nebula for faint stars. E & F Trapezium were very easy, I got a faint star close to the Trapezium which I think is called MT. Trapezium G generally eluded me although I may had had the odd glimpse of that plus H but they are magnitude 15 and the nebulous backdrop makes them even harder I think.

Good piece on going deep into Messier 42 from Sky & Telescope here:

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/star-trapping-in-orions-trapezium/

9 minutes ago, Les Ewan said:

What eyepieces do you use? I was observing Uranus this evening and failed to see a satellite!🤬 I have a 16" Newt and have also tried to see Triton a few times and failed also. I usually use a 12.5mm Orthoscopic giving a power of 144X. 

I cant understand it as I have seen field stars around The Ring Nebula that are below magnitude 15 a few times, granted Uranus and Neptune are lower in the sky. 

Your success using high power has inspired me to try a barlow with the 12.5mm or maybe with my 9mm Orthoscopic giving powers  of 200X and 300X.

The eyepieces I used for this task tonight were (mostly) the Pentax XW 5mm and 3.5mm.

Sleep tight Rob and Dave - hope you feel better soon Dave !

I think we have probably exhausted the original subject now. I'm grateful for so many contributions and opinions though and it's been a nice friendly chat with a few interesting diversions along the way

I'm actually observing tonight under a clear sky and with one of my least expensive scopes - my 12 inch dob

Nice clear night at last. I've got the 12 inch dobsonian out and I've been observing Uranus for the past hour.

My specific objective is to see how many Uranian moons I can spot. With this scope in the past I've seen the two brightest - Umbriel and Titania. Tonight, with the help of a freshly washed primary mirror, I'm very pleased to have been able to add two more - Oberon and Ariel.

The brighter pair, Umbriel and Titana are visible, and can be held, with direct vision. Oberon and Ariel are more elusive (closer to the planet as well) and are being glimpsed as they pop in and out of view.

I am using high magnifications for this task. 318x gets me Umbriel and Titania but I needed to push up to 454x to tease out Oberon and Ariel. Oberon is close to magnitude 15 currently which is quite a challenge !

This is the first time I've been able to see four of Uranus's natural satellites and I'm pleased with the result

Miranda would be very nice but that one is currently another magnitude fainter again and even closer to the planet than Oberon and Ariel

Four is nice though

1 minute ago, Franklin said:

...But you cannot appreciate good optics without a suitable mount I suppose,

My Skytee II cost about £150 used and does a great job with my refractors up to and including 120mm in aperture. Enough to let me appreciate them I'm sure

I ended up spending more on a mount for the 130mm F/9.2 to get something that would hold it steady enough due to the long tube. 

54 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Here is interesting thought that I just had.

What if we change the question - just tiny bit?

Why do really expensive mounts sell and why are we drawn to them?

That question is not nearly as controversial as original one. To me, answer is rather simple and it consist of two things

1. Payload

2. Performance

There are few additional minor details - like if you want to guide or not (use of absolute encoders) - and that is it.

Not nearly as much mystique or price difference for "last few percent" as with scopes. Interesting isn't it? Maybe this is because performance of the mount is much more easily assessed?

I'm nowhere near as interested in mounts. Mostly I use low cost ones !

1 hour ago, F15Rules said:

On CN they have a dedicated Classic scopes forum..we had one on SGL some years ago but sadly it was discontinued...not sure why?

I think that over here we tend to think of particular scope models as classic, usually because they were game changing or widely acknowledged as being innovative or in the top of their class.

Sometimes they weren't fully recognised until years after they were introduced. A few examples I'd like to offer, leaving out those scopes already mentioned where possible?

- Skywatcher Heritage 130 reflector..the first introduction to astronomy for many modern, younger enthusiasts, in very much the same way that 60mm F15 refractors from Japan were for the older generation such as mine.

- Vixen SP102 - the "aspirational" scope for many a young stargazer in the 1980s - and considered a "serious" scientific instrument for amateurs.

- Charles Frank 6" reflector. Same as for the Vixen above.

- Televue Genesis. A modern era classic scope both beautiful to look at and optically excellent.

- Takahashi FS series refractors. I know I'm biased, having an FS128, but these "Front Surface" (FS) fluorite doublets were genuine game changers, offering for the first time a design that allowed the synthetic fluorite front lens element to be hard coated, this allowing the optimal doublet lens design for contrast and colour control, with a robust protection for the Front Surface lens.

The FS102 4" version is especially well regarded and arguably contributed greatly to the race for more affordable visually apochromatic refractors, ultimately brought to the "masses" by Synta's FPL53 ED100 range - another classic IMHO.

I also believe that Lzos triplets as worked on by Thomas Back can be considered classics.

Intes/Lomo/Intes Micro Maksutovs and Maksutovs Newtonians from Russia.. brought close-to-apo refractor performance to the market at much lower prices than most early apos.

I'm sure many more good examples can be cited, but for me the definition of a classic scope isn't defined by age, it's defined by performance, reputation among it's peers, and a concensus that it made a real contribution to the furtherance of great scopes for amateurs around the world...however old it is or isn't 🙂

Dave

Seems a good list Dave

You don't see many over here but I wonder if the Edmunds Astroscan deserves the title of "classic" ?. It was a sort of breakthrough design when it came out in 1976.

I'd also consider a Celestron C8 in the original "orange peel" finish a classic design, personally.

1 hour ago, vagk said:

So, as you had owned both, do you believe Pentax XW 10mm is a better option for f/5 Dobsonian than ES 12mm 92° ? 

It depends what you want. If you want a hyper-wide field of view then the ES 92 is the one. If you want a lighter, smaller eyepiece and are happy with a 70 degree field of view, the Pentax XW is a very nice eyepiece. There is quite a cost difference between the two as well which might be important as well - in the UK the ES 12mm 92 costs £160 more than the Pentax XW 10mm which is quite a significant amount.

Optically they will both perform well in an F/5 dobsonian. The ES will need some additional counterbalancing because of it's weight and it is a 2 inch eyepiece of course so it will need 2 inch filters if you use those.

Sorry that I can't offer a conclusive answer but they are very different eyepieces in many ways.

My Tasco 60mm refractor is probably 50-60 years old but I don't think of it as a classic. The TAL 100 RT (bottom photo) was around 20 years old and yet I do think of that as a classic. Odd, isn't it

Thanks for the continued and quality input folks. I've been following the discussion with interest but some of the optical theory stuff has me teetering on the brink of @Stu's cliff so I've not added thoughts of my own to avoid the possibility of falling off !.

I recall that for quite a while, the author / reviewer Neil English was a great proponent of long, slow refractors although he was never a fan of the expensive, shorter apochromats or "poodles" as he termed them. Lately however Neil has had a change of heart and favours newtonians.

http://neilenglish.net/optimising-an-8-inch-newtonian-for-visual-use/