John

I'm glad you are impressed by your 12 inch dob - once I moved to that aperture, there was no going back but I did need to find the lightest 12 inch that I could to ensure that it got used often, hence my Orion Optics 12 in F/5.3.

I had the 8 inch version of the Revelation (my 1st dob in fact) and had a similar issue with the mirror coatings. The mirrors are decent quality (GSO made) but the over-coatings for the 1st generation Revelations were either thin or skimped so a need to re-coat these is not unusual at all.

My current OO 12 was re-coated and hi-luxed (by OO) 11 years ago and the coatings are still immaculate.

There are other coating options than OO though, as I'm sure you will find out.

9 hours ago, Space Hopper said:

A question to the AZ100 fraternity....

Is anyone using mid sized and above Newtonians on them ??

I have recently acquired a nice 10" OTA (Orion Optics) but its too big to use on my regular alt-az mount. Too much mass / size.

Maybe it would be better on the AZ100, (using counterweights) but i get the feeling that these class of mounts are at the limit with an 8" size Newt and anything bigger would be too much.

And its not the actual weight of the scope, more the actual size . And its a 1200mm 'shorter tube' version i have rather than a 1600mm long tube.

I'm guessing any longer tube at that focal length would also have tripod clearance issues as well unless a pier was deployed.

Thanks, Rob.

I used to use a 10 inch Orion Optics F/4.8 newtonian on a Giro / Ercole type alt-azimuth mount and it worked just fine. The AZ100 is a good step up again in terms of solidity from what I was using back then. I'm pretty sure it would work well.

The only advantage of the 2 inch eyepiece format is that the apparent field of view for a given focal length can be larger because the 2 inch barrel can accommodate a larger diameter field stop than the 1.25 inch barrel.

So in medium to shorter focal lengths (ie: less than 18mm focal length) eyepieces are generally 1.25 inch format because they don't need to be larger. Some do have a 2 inch barrel option or hybrid design to give the option of holding them in the larger focuser drawtube but optically they are still 1.25 inch eyepieces.

Above around 18mm in focal length, the 2 inch format allows the ultra and hyper-wide fields of view that have become popular with some (like me !).

I had a C90 for a few months last year for a holiday in darkest Wales. It was on an AZ-3 mount. Certainly very light and compact.

I did like my Tele Vue Ranger 70mm though. Good optics and very easy to carry in one piece with one hand. The scope moved on to Roger Vine of the "Scopeviews" website who did a review of it. I think he liked it as well

http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/TVRanger.htm

This was how I had it setup:

Orion Optics are about the only vendor in the UK that I know of that do not include V.A.T on their listed prices. 20% on the end of the shopping cart can come as a bit of  a shock !

(although their website does state prices are "excl. VAT" to be fair)

13 minutes ago, Oldfort said:

The lens unit says "Fluorite Lens by Canon Optron Inc".  Canon Optron is a specialist subsidiary of Canon Inc.

I agree with your point about the price differential with the 90mm.  Barring the lens, I think the only difference between the 90 and the 107 is the bigger lens housing for the latter. The tube components, focusser, rings and dovetail are the same.

Canon Optron makes the objective lenses for the Vixen and Takahashi fluorite refractors.

I use a clone of the Hyperflex 7.2mm - 21.5mm zoom:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html

It seems to be a good performer for white light solar and nighttime observing. I have used it for HA solar as well and it worked well.

The field of view is quite a bit narrower at the 21.5mm end and widens out at 7.2mm but that is commonly the case for zoom eyepieces.

The laser collimator test is good to determine that the optical axis of the focuser is aligned with the objective lens - the laser beam should exit through the centre of the objective lens if the alignment is correct.

Once you have done the above, the cheshire eyepiece is a good way to test the tilt of the objective lens:

Probably best not to get too hung up on these tests though !

1 hour ago, mikemarotta said:

G'day, mate! You did not get the answers you need. First of all you need to find an Australian retailer to buy your telescope from. They will be able to help you with customer support, and they will stand behind their products. 

SECOND: You need to do some background reading. This is like buying a car: sports car, van, 4-cylinder or 6, long drives or short commutes? Go to your local library or visit bookstores (used books, especially), and visit more than one of these discussion boards.  Read and ask questions. On one of the boards that I visit one of the Moderators, one of the leaders, just asked for help buying their first telescope. This is not something to jump into. 

The telescope that everyone wants you to buy -- spending your money for you -- requires frequent maintenance. You have to adjust it periodically. That's why they told you to get a "Cheshire." It is an alignment tool. But not every telescope needs that, only REFLECTORS with mirrors. The other kind, are REFRACTORS with lenses. They also need adjustment, like anything else in life, but not as nearly often, and maybe never as long as you own your telescope. And when you do need to align a lens system,  you usually take to the shop and have an expert do it.  

You got hit with a lot of buzzwords about "aperture" and "Dobs" and "fast" telescopes.  Without getting too technical right now, a telescope is a SYSTEM: 1. A main lens or mirror in a tube. 2. A tripod and mount 3. Eyepieces. Having one eyepiece is like having a car with one gear. It works... sort of ....  And when you listen to them talk among themselves, they all admit that the MOUNT and TRIPOD are as important as the telescope itself.  That's why I recommended that you visit the websites and the stores of retailers in Queensland and near Brisbane.  You need to do some window shopping in order to gain the knowledge you need to make a good choice.  Finally, if you fall in love with the hobby as we all have, your first telescope will not be your last. 

It all depends on the seeing conditions. The Cassini division and the Great Red Spot are not guaranteed sights.  You did not ask if the person lives in the city or suburbs or country. A reflector needs collimation. Can the person asking actually do that? You think it is easy. I found it difficult and abandoned reflectors for refractors. The questioner asked about what they knew to ask about (planets) because living in Australia, they take the Magellanic Clouds for granted.  A small refractor might be just the ticket. We do not know.

You gave some sound advice, Heather, no doubt about that. In this case, for myself, I hear warning bells when someone says "that's what I did." Is that cognitive dissonance? Are you justifiying a decision that you cannot change? I would not recommend the first telescope I bought. It was a mistake. And it was very similar to the one you recommended. Maybe it would be OK. Asking more questions might suggest some alternatives.

So, it is hard to use. And it has come from the UK. The person asking is in Oz, mate. Maybe they have a tablet. Maybe they do not want to use their phone for this.  It would help to find out more about the person's context.

You gave the right advice: slow down. Then you buried the person in buzzwords and jargon. The last line is salient advice, probably the best way to start the conversation. 

All good points. 

And when told the negatives they will be incomprehensible. You do not realize that you are speaking a foreign language. Fast ... slow... spherical... parabolic... f/8 ... diagonal. 

The one thing you said that could help was "iceinspace" and I was able to find it:  https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/index.php

 

You were doing so well. And then you fell into jargon. But you were not alone in that. 

I'm not sure that it is helpful to critique the responses that folks are giving here like this Mike

By all means post your own advice in your own style for the original poster but others should be free to post what and how they like I think.

All the responses are well intentioned I'm sure

102mm is the old 4 inches. A very popular aperture.

I'm sure 100mm - 105mm's will squeeze in as well though

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Wow, that works out to within $22 of new price here in the states before shipping and taxes.  Your TV new prices must be outrageously high right now.

The Ethos 21mm is currently listed new at £810 GBP at First Light Optics.

I understand from that other forum that ES stuff has taken a price hike in the US and is now closer to Tele Vue pricing ?

Quite possible to see Neptune with a 150mm scope. It's actually visible (just about) in a 6x30 optical finder if you know where to look.

I spotted it a short while back with my 100mm refractor. It needs high magnifications (150x or more) to show that it is a disk - it's apparent diameter is just 2.3 arc seconds so it would fit between the pairs of stars in the famous "double double" Epsilon Lyrae.

I've actually glimpsed Neptune's largest moon, Triton with my 130mm refractor last year !

Here is my report from a few nights back:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/380941-outer-planets-plus-some-deeper-stuff/?tab=comments#comment-4119610

1 minute ago, Sunshine said:

This must be thorn in every amateurs side, we all want to reassure ourselves that our scope which we paid hard earned money for is doing what it should. There’s no avoiding it, now that you have seen the elusive airy disc just remember that not every night will you be able to. Enjoy your scope, if the views look great then rest assured your scope is working.

One additional challenge is that the core optics of many / most scopes are good but those of the low cost accessories that are provided with them are somewhat weaker and do not allow the core optics to deliver to their full potential.

The problem for the manufacturers / retailers is that including a decent quality diagonal and eyepieces would add a substantial amount to the purchase price of the scope which might well make it look uncompetitive in the market place, to a newcomer to the hobby.

1 hour ago, Alan64 said:

Know your Synta equatorials...

Of those, the EQ-4 is a bit rare these days, but it does exist.  Those are the basic heads coming out of China.  It is the EQ-5, however, that is the go-to chameleon.

These are the optional modes for the EQM-35...

I have no idea of what that is on the left, but note the teeny-tiny counter-weight within the mode on the right.  That's for balancing a camera, only, no telescope. 

With an EQ5-class mount, you can attach an 80mm refractor, or a 130mm f/5 Newtonian, then insert a camera into those. 

The EQM-35 is for dabbling, puttering; a little bit of this, perhaps a little bit of that, but in the end not much else I'm afraid.

I made a big mistake back in 2012, and got an EQ-3.  I now have an EQ-5, which is the "sweet spot" among equatorials, and portable in its own right.

To be fair, the EQM-35, in its full-blown equatorial mode, will allow for a small telescope with a camera inserted, like a 60mm or 72mm, at most.  Then, you can certainly try an 80mm.  You do want to keep the weights of everything in mind.  The telescope and camera combined should only weigh 50% to 60% of the mount's load-capacity.  

If you reside within or near a heavily light-polluted location, you might want to rethink your strategy.  Then, dare I up the ante and suggest a Sky-Watcher HEQ5(in white)/Orion "Sirius"(in black)?  Those are basic EQ-5 heads, incognito, as well, and enhanced.

No HEQ5 pictured Alan ?

The HEQ5 was an important step between the EQ5 and the EQ6 I think. You do at least mention it in the last para but the HEQ5 was much more than a slightly enhanced EQ5 I think. Inboard motors for one thing.

I'm not at all sure that the EQ4, that you picture, was a Synta product. Several references I've seen have it as a Kenko product (the Kenko NES) and made in Japan. It's probably been cloned at some point by a Chinese manufacturer though.

The EQ3-2 was also known as the CG-4 and the EQ5 as the CG-5 when branded Celestron, just to make things even more confusing.

Lovely looking scope - congratulations

I grabbed some gaps in the clouds here with my 100m refractor and got 5 Saturnian moons just now. Iapetus was a bit hit and miss due to thin cloud cover and Enceladus was just too close to the main planet and rings to see this evening - lost in the glare of Saturn.

Nice to get some glimpses of Iapetus because I'm re-reading 2001: A Space Odyssey again currently and have just at the part where Dave Bowman encounters T.M.A -1's big brother on that moon

36 minutes ago, jetstream said:

@Deadlake I love REAL TEST REPORTS LIKE YOURS.

Note the 532nm test wavelength vs the 600+ typical wavelength. This scope will perform beyond your expectations IMHO.

When I've seen LZOS scopes tested independantly (eg: by Herr Rohr) they usually do a touch better than the supplied tests. I think the latter are mainly to demonstrate that the objective has passed the quality control levels stipulated by APM.

There is an Ethos 21 in UK Astro Buy & Sell if anyone want's an alternative. It's not mine !

4 hours ago, Deadlake said:

This is a Rupert @ Astrograph special APM 130/ F6 scope. Hand delivered. 

LZOS lens with a Strehl of 0.978. The phenolic tube is reduced 4cm from the standard KUO tube to allow more infocus for binoviewer use.  The tube has baffles whereas the APM phenolic tubes no longer do.

Usually Starlight 3.5" FT focuser and tube rings.

Comes as standard with a handle, unlike a certain Japanese manufacture...

In addition no more LZOS lens cells till January 2023, so I don't expect many more posts here for some time.

Not seen first light, however I expect clouds...

I'll post some pictures next to a Vixen SD103S so you can see how much shorter it is.

That looks really superb - congratulations

If there are not to be any more for a while I'd better post another pic of mine

7 minutes ago, Buqibu said:

Yeah, might be. Though because its a refractor I'd rather not tinker with it and risk messing it up. The views are otherwise quite sharp so its okay

As long as you are happy with the views then that is all that matters.

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

You’ll be needing a 31mm Nagler then 👹👹, certainly my favourite low power eyepiece for the Veil and NAN. The ES 30mm 82 is pretty close but the Nag has better edge performance to my eyes.

Wicked man

What scope (or scopes) will you be using with these eyepieces ?

If the diffraction rings only appear on one side of the star and / or do not appear concentric around the central airy disk then that suggests to me that there is some sort of collimation error in the optics. It could be the diagonal (if in use), the focuser or the objective lens tilt.

You should see something like these images inside the focus point, at focus and outside of the focus point:

1 hour ago, Burns84 said:

Hi in reply yeah i use stellarium and have aligned the finderscope i tell you one thing i didnt mention as its a dobsonian i have difficulty finding things because of the way they work i.e upside-down and knowing what way to move the scope because its all backwards. For example say you see on paper or app that a star or galaxy is say to the left of the point your on i guess this means you move right and up is down. I know i said ive seen Jupiter and saturn they were quite easy its more the star hopping with the dob and yes i think ill purchase a red dop finder.

 

You can flip the view in Stellarium to match the view through the dobsonian eyepiece or your finderscope. You can flip the horizontal and vertical orientation using ctrl-shift-H and ctrl-shift-V.

I use a red dot / illuminated reticule finder and a right-angle corrected image optical finder on my dob which both give the view as our eyes see it, until I look through the eyepiece of the scope, then it flips both vertically and horizontally. 

It does take a bit of getting used to !

Excellent report Piero

I (just about) managed something similar back in June.