John

33 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

If the F stop of your EPs is not over 33 mm (from memory) you could get the T2 version rather then the 2” version, it’s half the price. Which one by the way > F7 the prism version?

Having checked the spec of the Baader T2 prism I use with my Tak, it appears that it is the BBHS version so I'll try it in the 130mm triplet sometime and see if I can notice any differences over the Astro Physics Maxbright that I use with that scope currently.

I probably need a night of exceptional seeing so that might take some time !

(Can't seem to get "seeing" of any kind lately )

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

In a long focal length scope a good quality prism gives a bit better contrast and a bit less light scatter..

I've been wondering about moving to a 2 inch Baader BBHS prism diagonal for my 130mm F/9.2 triplet but I'm doubtful that I will notice the difference for the additional £'s spent

3 minutes ago, Carl Au said:

The best AZ mount I ever had was a Giro III with a ADM (?) clamps with an extension. A very sold bit of kit that would handle a 6 inch refractor no bother. 

I used to have one. I now have the Giro Ercole which is very similar

Getting the tripod right and, with these "T" type alt-az mounts makes a lot of difference to how steady they are and how smooth their motions are. They do have a lot of capacity. ED120 on one side, ED150 on the other:

I use a Baader T2 Zeiss spec prism with my F/9 Tak FC100-DL but Tele Vue and Astro Physics mirror diagonals with my other refractors. I have not yet tried the prism in one of my faster refractors - I might one night, out of interest.

49 minutes ago, Steve Clay said:

How heavy are the Taks?

Depends on the model. The FC100's range from 2.8kg to 3.8kg.

The tube length is as, if not more, crucial in determining the success or otherwise of a scope / mount combination.

I'm a great fan of the alt-azimuth mount as well. I have had a few equatorials over the years but now I only use alt-azimuths.

33 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

...  are there any short focal length SCTs or Maks ? I'd like to know .

 

Meade produced an F/6.3 SCT in the 8 and 10 inch apertures a few years ago. It was not a great success as I recall. People seemed to prefer the performance that the F/10 versions produced and would use an F/6.3 focal reducer if they wanted wider views.

Mak-cassegrains have always been F/10 or slower as far as I know.

Mak-newtonians can be faster though but you don't get the advantage of the short tube length with those because its not such a "folded" optical design.

Schmidt-Newtonians are fast scopes available in focal ratio of F/4 but again you don't get that really short tube advantage.

I have read of people applying dark red nail varnish to the light source to dim it down.

It's not a colour that I wear though

7 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

I would imagine it should be feasible to create a finder as accurate as the Telrad but in a smaller and more aesthetically pleasing package 👍

It can be done. This is 50% better looking

9 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I found the Baader SkySurfer III disappointing optically and mechanically. But at least it’s not as ugly as a Telrad 😊

 

That one is basic but the cost is low, the window has some dew protection and is larger than some and the "dot" is not as much of a "sploge" as some.

One of the worst RDF's that I have used is the Tele Vue Qwik-Point which I had on a Tele Vue Ranger refractor. It was barely usable in all honesty. Cheap but not nice. No wonder the Tele Vue lettering started to wear off so quickly - perhaps it was embarrassed

I've owned two scopes with Orion Optics mirrors in them. Both have been good performers. My current one has 10 year old coatings which are still in excellent shape.

11 minutes ago, AlexK said:

Sure thing, go ahead. That's just cheap me. Though you can trust me on one thing: it's no different (and actually worse due to its miniscule aperture, impossible to reach for wiping) than my 20 years old $5 shipped off eBay from China RDF which is still kicking even on my 12ga shotgun (these are sold for ~$35 nowadays):

 

Seriously. Just make sure you can return that nonsense. For $400 you can get an amazing Nitrogen filled true-zero-parallax internally alignable holographic gunsight.
But I'd rather get another 100 deg EP for that money.

I have had a few of those those RDF's over the years - a bit too bright on all the settings for astronomy IMHO

The Tele Vue device does at least have some sort of dew shield.

That's an odd looking scope in the 2nd picture - very small aperture ?

45 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

....I'm really looking forward to trying out my new acquisition, and I'll report back honestly what I find. However it performs, though, it won't change my view that on the whole I don't rate Meade or most of their equipment very highly..with a couple of honourable exceptions..🥴🙂

Dave

I will look forward reading your findings Dave

And I'm with you all the way with Meade, having had quite a few disappointments with their stuff over the years

30 minutes ago, AlexK said:

$400 for an RDF? LOL! C'mon! Even though I'm making more than that a day, I'd rather live pointing by sighting along the OTA all my life than feed this scam scheme.

Telrad is a most solid choice, and definitely has many more useful properties than any RDF.

Like most astro accessories there are a wide range of options and prices of finders available.

What's a days wages in return for a lifetimes excellent finding anyway ? 

I'd still like to try one.

29 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

I really like using rdf’s on their own. The lowest setting can be sometimes too bright. I think when I get some time I may dismantle one and see what can be done. I’m pretty sure that if a resistor with a higher value is used to replace the original one this could be the answer to getting more usable brightness settings. 

I think many RDF's we use are based on rifle sights so originally intended primarily for daytime use. The Rigel and Telrad finders were developed by astronomers.

I would like to try a Tele Vue Starbeam sometime and see whether their price is justified:

https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/tele-vue-starbeam-finders.html

On 30/01/2021 at 09:23, Paz said:

.....One thing I would like to see added to it is on the actual map some representation of PA and separation like Interstellarium for those occasions when you don't want to go into the appendices. It would clutter the map potentially but it is a double star atlas.

Yes, exactly that.

I now find that RACI optical finders do practically all I need in terms of finding with my refractors. I do use the Rigel Quikfinder and 9x50 RACI optical combo on my 12 inch dobsonian. The 100mm and 102mm refractors have their own 6x30 RACI's and the 120mm and 130mm refractors, 9x50 RACI units. I have a couple of spare Vixen RDF's knocking around just in case I feel that's a better tool for a particular task but 90% of the time the RACI opticals get the results.

The slight downside is that I now have a collection of 5 RACI's and 3 illuminated reticule finders.

While the Skywatcher type finder mounts with the sprung pin and two nylon screws do work pretty well, I have a couple of finder mounts that use three screws at both ends and those hold finders much more solidly, virtually never needing re-adjustment with the main scope optics. This type of finder mount:

I like my finders to be aligned to the point that what is on the centre of the cross hair will be in the centre of the field of view at 200x plus though the main scope.

Well, when I compared the Meade 4000 UWA 6.7mm with the Pentax XW 7mm that I replaced it with, even I could see the difference in brightness when observing smaller DSO's such as planetary nebula.

On brighter targets such as the moon, planets and double stars, the light transmission has no real impact though. 

But, as we must always say, "your mileage may vary"

19 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hmm...

That's an interesting list John..and somewhat confusing, too.

It looks like an old and very incomplete list to me, albeit we know Marcus Ludes is well respected as the figure behind APM in Germany.

Some glaring omissions in the list in 2021 such as:

No TV Delite, Delos, Ethos 

No Pentax XL or XW (and they've been around a LONG time, and all with excellent transmission..

No Baader Genuine orthos, Celestron Ultima or other Pseudo Masuyama (IMHO these all have excellent transmission), apart from Tak LEs.

No Vixen LVWs, SLVs or HRs

No Celestron Excels or BST Starguiders 

No Baader Morpheus or Hyperions

I could go on, but it just seems a very selective list and an incomplete one, since many of the above eyepieces have been, or are now, big sellers with good transmission ratings?

You'd clearly expect Zeiss & Co to be right up there, but also surely the Pentax XWs, TV Delos and ES SWA & UWAs would feature too? As I say, it may be just an old list, but Pentax XLs and XWs have been around for 20-30 years, and universally well regarded in terms of coatings and light transmission?

It's also interesting to look in the far right column at the overall percentage ratings..in many cases the quoted differences are very small statistically - a few percentage points? And how.many of us can distinguish differences of, say, 3-5 percentage points with our own eyes?

It reminds me of the (often quite heated!) debates over the pond in the context of the difference between, for instance, standard diagonals, "enhanced" diagonals and dielectric diagonals, especially the latter two, how hard it is to see a difference?

To take a real example in my own case..a few years back I bought a 2" Televue Enhanced Diagonal. It worked really well, (and their one piece construction from a block of aircraft grade aluminium is superb) and I was very happy with it. 

About a year later I had a hankering to try an Everbrite version of the same diagonal...so I bought one, same build quality and size, but a good deal more expensive..and could see very little, if any, difference between them, even though I'm sure Tele Vue claimed several percentage points higher transmission for the Everbrite..

Heres an example of what I mean about the debates:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/655975-tele-vue-enhanced-aluminium-v-everbrite-diagonals/

In "real life" usage, I've concluded that such debates are pretty meaningless, and largely unhelpful to the average amateur..what matters is what I see through my scope, with my eyepieces, through my eyes in my local conditions. I know that my own eyes would really struggle nowadays to see the very fine detail I could see 15-20 years ago, certainly in terms of light transmission differences.

However, I'm equally sure that at least some of this deficiency is countered by the fact that I am now a better observer than I was 15-20 years ago..why? - because I don't rush my sessions like I did when I had little time, I had work the next day, I had young children, etc etc. And I see more when I look for longer. And I have better dark adaptation when I'm not in a rush, better preparation, and more patience in waiting for those fleeting moments of best seeing.

That's why I rarely visit CN these days, there are just too many threads that start off as a decent discussion, such as is the norm here on SGL, but then get hijacked by people who believe that their own experience is 100% infallible

Then along comes someone who thinks the exact opposite, but also thinks their experience is also infallible, and then it all falls apart from there..(very UNLIKE what we see on SGL!).. and yet, in a country the size of the USA, the difference in seeing conditions across the US must be tremendous - from pristine desert skies to areas very like the UK, driven by the Jetstream, often to despair!😂.

In conclusion, I don't dispute the pure statistics of Mr Ludes' table: the pure figures may be right (and maybe my 8.8mm version of the Meade is better (or worse!) than the 6.7mm quoted in the table).. I haven't actually used it at night yet..but I am confident that I have enough other, proven eyepieces with which to compare the Meade, in order to judge whether I like it enough to keep it😉.

But it looks and feels like a top end eyepiece, and I'm really looking forward to finding out one way or the other!😊

Dave

Fair enough Dave.

This is another CN link I'm afraid but at least it is Don Pensack who is also a member here of course:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/395293-eypiece-transmission/?p=5062914

That was the original "smooth side" Meade UWA 14mm of course. They might have improved things a little with the Mk II ones ?

What matters most is how YOU find the eyepiece, of course

Their light transmission could be better .....

http://www.amateurastronomie.com/Astronomie/tips/tips3.htm

(last eyepiece listed)

1 minute ago, John said:

On 29/01/2021 at 21:03, jetstream said:

Congrats for a fine eyepiece! It doesn't matter a few pounds (or dollars) either way IMHO, you'll have a very good piece of glass to look through.

The original question was whether the TV Panoptic 24mm was worth double the price of the ES 24 / 68. If the OP pays £200+ for the ES 24 / 68 then the Panoptic 24 is 1.5x as expensive. 

Probably a similar answer to the question posed for some but it is a slightly different question now

I bought my mint condition Panoptic 24 used for £160.00. Still a lot more than I sold the 24mm ES / 68 for. No regrets though - as you say, it doesn't matter a few pounds ...... 

Meanwhile, back at the original question asked ......

25 minutes ago, ADSmith said:

Isolating your self from nearby lights and becoming fully dark adapted goes a long way too. I've seen the faintest outlines of the Andromeda galaxy and the Orion Nebula in my 70mm apreture 500mm focal length refractor and I'm just outside of a pretty metro area but according to clearoutside.com I'm in a class 5 Bottle area.

My skies are Bortle 5 according to "Clear Outside". I can see quite a swathe of the milky way, the Andromeda Galaxy and the Orion Nebula without a scope, on a decent night.

Another interesting test of local darkness in the winter is the Orion star count:

https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-care-about/nature-and-landscapes/dark-skies/star-count-2021/

Go with whichever works the best for you.

I now use my big alt-az with a Berlebach UNI 28 so I don't need the pillars etc. The mount worked just as well on the EQ6 tripod though and I didn't need the pillar with that either.