John

4 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Makes me realise it is getting harder for beginners getting into the hobby to buy decent equipment. 😢

I hope it does not go back to what it was in the 1970's / 1980's. Equipment choice was quite limited back then (in the UK at least) and the prices seemed really high for someone (me !) trying to get some modestly decent equipment on a tight budget 

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

The Taks are all being used: a museum is no place for them  as they need to live and breathe under the night sky 😊

I do agree that seeing all those fine scopes not being used was slightly sad, the row of Pentax apochromats just sat on the floor, especially

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Looking at the position of the moon a couple of days ago (I've taken the 22nd as it was clear night) I would say that the group of stars you saw were likely to be the Pleiades or 7 Sisters star cluster which is in the constellation of Taurus. Despite the name, 6 stars are more regularly visible to the naked eye and they do form a close group with a shape that could approximate what you describe. They would have been to the right and slightly higher in the sky than the moon that night and in the south eastern sky.

46 minutes ago, Tim said:

Hi Stu. Try and get the opportunity to use the H beta on the North American nebula. I got one an used it on the horsey and Californian as you might expect, but failed to be blown away by it and was all but ready to sell it on (actually, to give it back to the guy I borrowed it from for a 2 year evaluation :p)  On the NAN it was a revelation, loads more structure than with UHC or Oiii, much better contrast too. I could take it or leave it on the horsey tbh, and I reckon it is just as good with the Lumicon UHC, or even unfiltered if the skies are right.

Really hoping for clear skies at Winterfest next week, exploring the Rosette with the UHC is an annual highlight.  

I've used my H-Beta (Astronomik) on M42 with some interesting results

I really is worth experimenting with different filters on different targets and deviating from the established advice - sometimes you get a nice surprise !

FWIW these are the figures for my Lumicon O-III:

5 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

I've just upgraded my Baader T2 prism diagonal to the Zeiss BBHS T2 version. This one has 34mm free aperture Vs 32mm for the standard T2. The difference in the aperture size is very noticeable just looking at the new one. 

I just bought the bare prism from a friend here on SGL..already had the 2" nosepiece and T2 clicklock ep holder👍

Dave

Very nice Dave

I use one of those on my Tak FC100.

1 hour ago, refractor2345 said:

So, after reading some positive comments on the 6.7mm ES eyepiece (82 degrees) I thought upon the 6.5mm eyepiece (Link below!) And so I thought of hearing your experience with these eyepieces and even better, a straight up comparison! ( P.S. I want it to use it with a Barlow, for planetary viewing, so recommend one to use with this!)

 

Link : https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/eyepiece/products/82-6-5mm

I think these are a new range - I've not seen much about them reported as yet.

For that sort of money I'd probably prefer a Tele Vue Delite or a Pentax XW 7mm both being well known and very well regarded eyepieces.

I had an ES 82 (non-LER) 4.7mm recently which was pretty good but that cost £75 (used).

40 minutes ago, Jiggy 67 said:

An excellent idea John, below are my notes on the Owl sometime ago
 

 

Very faint, very small Planetary Nebula with a possible hint of blue. Used the Baader 8mm (x 125 mag), initially with the O111 filter but found this filter to obscure and darken the image too much so switched to the UHC filter which was much better and created a decent image, especially with averted vision. Also made an attempt with the Vixen 6mm (x 166 mag) plus UHC filter but very difficult with high mag and sky quality. Note: High wispy cloud crossing at times affecting view

That's interesting. For me, the O-III usually does a noticeably better job of enhancing the contrast of the Owl than a UHC does.

I've quite recently acquired an 8 inch Orion Optics Europa and found the cool down times rather lengthy in it's standard form.

I may change the primary cell to OO's current and more open design but meanwhile I've ventilated the back plate (photo below) which does seem to have helped. A fan, such as the ones mentioned in this thread, may well be my next step I think, before shelling out £200+ on an OO upgraded primary cell.

Jupiter through thin cloud this evening with my 100mm refractor at 180x. Quite nice feature contrast, GRS on the other side though. Callisto and Ganymede are close to each other in the sky and the difference in the apparent diameter of their disks is quite obvious visually.

Probably all the observing I'll get looking at the rest of the sky but every little helps

10 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

Just bought the UHC and the OIII . The others have to wait. Thanks folks 👍

If the Veil nebula is still placed OK for you, the difference between these filters on that target will make an interesting comparison. If the Veil is not in a good place, the Owl Nebula (M 97) ) in Ursa Major is also another interesting "test" target for these narrowband and line filters.

20 minutes ago, heliumstar said:

That's interesting. I am aware that Japanese might not be as 'excited' about Taks as we can sometimes be but what else is out there that is held in awe by people from Japan?

This is an article about the Telescope Museum in Tawa, Japan. Some wonderful telescopes in there but very few Takahashis, as far as I can see:

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/a-visit-to-the-museum-of-astronomical-telescope-r3040

6 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

This thread has piqued my interest. Most often i am stargazing from a B6 zone, would you folks say it makes a big difference to get a UHC filter on applicable targets? Mostly i just avoid fuzzies because its a bit disappointing from the skyglow perspective.

A UHC or O-III filter might actually let you see something of some nebulae that you can't see anything of currently. They work better still under dark skies of course.

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

How about this. Better glass than the SW:100ED

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/starfield-102mm-f7-ed-doublet-refractor.html

Have the optics of the SW 100ED and the Starfield 102 actually been compared directly yet ?

UHC followed as rapidly as possible by an O-III

Astronomik is a good brand to aim for.

The first proper astronomical telescope that I looked through was an old 8.5 inch newtonian in 1971-72 which was in my school observatory.

Back then, all I had access to myself was my parents Prinz (Dixons) 8x30 binoculars. I did manage to see and sketch a comet with them though.

The first telescope that I actually owned myself was much more modest - this 1960's Tasco 60mm refractor, which I still have in it's wooden case:

My 2nd telescope was a bit more serious - an Astro Systems (Bedford) 6 inch F/6 newtonian on a Fullerscopes equatorial mount. I observed Halleys Comet in 1986 with this instrument:

Since then ? ........ er, I've sort of lost count 

I've tried my Skywatcher ED120 stopped down using the central hole in the dust cap which turns it into a 52mm F/17.3 ED doublet refractor.

I was doing this for fun really, just to see what could be seen with such a small aperture

I've also done it using a cardboard mask with an off axis aperture with my 12 inch dobsonian and I can get a 110mm unobstructed aperture with an effective focal ratio of F/14.4. The performance of that seemed just as an apochromatic refractor of 110mm would perform, perhaps unsurprisingly.

Stellarium shows Himalia. It is a lot further away from Jupiter than the Galilean moons though (which are clustered close to the planet at this level of zoom):

That will work and will reduce the CA visible considerably. It will also reduce the effective aperture of the scope to the diameter of the hole in the dust cap and therefore the resolution and light grasp will reduce as well.

I have an old Philips one somewhere. I've not used it for many years though.

This chart sets out the levels of CA that you can expect from achromat refractors. The relative differences between different spec scopes are reasonably accurate from my experience:

Quality achromat refractors such as the Scopetechs should also have minimal amounts of spherical aberration (SA) which means sharper views and better handling of high magnifications.

Although the seeing was quite good last night and the primary star well defined I could not get any indications of Dubhe B with my ED120 refractor last night even at 300x plus.

Theta Aurigae A & B on the other hand (and a much easier pair) was beautifully split by the scope at 300x. The 2 fainter and further off stars in the group showed well too.

Just to give an idea of the scale of a big, long refractor, this is the 150mm F/12 optical tube that I posted earlier in this thread alongside a 120mm F/7.5 and a 102mm F/6.5:

I forgot that I still have this one !

F/13.3 60mm - my 1960's Tasco achromat on it's rather wobbly alt-azimuth mount and with .965 eyepieces !

Optically its actually very nice scope

My old TAL 100 RT was a nice scope, but at F/10, possibly a little short for this thread ?:

This is currently my longest refractor. 130mm F/9.2 triplet apochromat:

16 hours ago, John said:

Here CO is telling me that it is clear but that cloud will spread and not clear again until around 11:00 pm. Unfortunately it seems accurate looking at the cloud that is approaching from the north. I say unfortunately because I'm helping at a society outreach observing event this evening. I actually hope that CO does prove incorrect tonight !

Last night CO was much too pessimistic. While there was some thin cloud about, it stayed generally clear so the outreach session worked well and I was even able to get some observing in when I got home

1 minute ago, Jakelol said:

What degree eyepieces and size do you use on yours? Should i get 1.25" or 2" and also how many degrees 82 or 100?

Mike was using the Baader Morpheus eyepieces of 17.5mm and 12.5mm in the above post which have a 76 degree apparent field of view. The Morpheus are 1.25 inch eyepieces. 

The only advantage in using 2 inch format eyepieces is that you can achieve a wider field of view. The downside is the expense and weight (in a small scope) plus you need to have a 2 inch diagonal to use them. Many folks end up with a set of 1.25 inch eyepieces and one or two 2 inch ones for the lowest power / widest views and a 2 inch diagonal which accepts both eyepiece sizes via an adapter (these usually come with the diagonal).

With a short focal length scope such as the ED72, you can get wide fields of view (showing nearly 4 degrees of sky, which is pretty huge) even with 1.25 inch eyepieces.