John

I'm not a binocular expert but I have a pair of the Helios Naturesport 10x50's and they seem good performers to me.

When in stock they are just a bit more than your budget new:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-binoculars/helios-naturesport-plus-50mm-binoculars.html

The Helios Fieldmaster looks to be a similar spec and is within your budget. I've not tried those though:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/classic-binoculars/helios-fieldmaster-50mm-binoculars.html

I have three pairs of Opticron binoculars as well in different sizes and they seem to be good performers for a reasonable price too.

Surprise clear night tonight, moonless too, for now. Got the 12 inch dob out and it's cold but pretty clear and dark out there. Scope is close enough to the house for the dining room table to be the accessory tray

Eskimo nebula at 338x with the UHC filter is exquisite

Your report has inspired me to get my 12 inch dob out tonight .

Surprise clear sky here without a moon. E & F Trapezium and a lot of other stuff looking lovely

Great report Magnus

You may well have seen the Horsehead - it has been very, very indistinct when I've managed to spot it with my 12 inch and that was with the help of an Hb filter.

Certainly nothing horse shaped about my experiences of it !

13 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I doubt I would have been able to put an 8" Dob tube in my old Peugeot 106, along with all the camping gear when I went to France to see the eclipse in 1999. The OTA is way more compact and lighter, the mount head is quite modest in size when you stow it, and the tripod is a very light manageable unit as well. The Dobson OTA is quite a beast in comparison. The base is also quite bulky.

I can get my 12 inch solid tube F/5.3 dob in my Toyota Auris with one rear seat folded flat plus driver, 2 passengers and a bunch of other gear in the other side of the boot. The Auris (and older one) is about the same size as a Golf so a bit larger than the 106 but not a lot.

I've not owned an 8 inch dob for a few years now (2 in the past though) but when I came across one in the window of a photographic store last year I remember thinking how compact and dainty it looked

One key phrase in the original post sticks out for me though:

"....For the amount of money I know I'm going to need to spend on a setup like this, I'd like better views than I can currently get through my Dob...."

So I reckon a 9.25 or 10 inch SCT might be required. And that is certainly not going to be a featherweight affair.

Not much difference on the planets but for DSO's the additional aperture of the 150mm 6SE has some benefits. These are added to by the fact that the 127 mak-cassegrain actually operates at an effective aperture of around 119mm / 120mm rather than the full 127mm. 30mm of difference does make a difference on these fainter targets.

3 hours ago, John said:

I'm sure that I broke all the ones that I made last year so probably best not to have any resolutions for 2020

 

Actually I will have one resolution - get the year right !

( I don't think I want another re-run of 2020 )

37 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

How many times have you got it out just to look at?

Once or twice ........

Those that use binoviewers often say that they don't need to use such expensive eyepieces with them to get excellent views.

If you get on with these devices they do seem to help tease that additional planetary / lunar / solar detail out. Not sure they help much with deep sky objects though

They don't double the effective aperture of the scope though. The light that the scope gathers is split between the two eyepieces reasonably evenly with a small loss of light overall. I think it is the power of using both eyes plus what the brain can do with that information that makes the difference.

I've just found a small aluminum eyepiece case a bit like @Jiggy 67's that is empty currently. I'm going to re-design it's interior layout to make it suitable for filters of different sizes and maybe one or two other things.

I'll post the results of the above when I have something to show.

Thanks again for all the suggestions and feedback

I think a lot of people buy SCT's because they see a lot of them in use, often within societies. Within the astro society that I belonged to most of the members who had scopes had SCT's. Personally, I've owned a few SCT's up to 8 inches and observed with them up to 14 inches in aperture. I've not been overwhelmed by the views from them generally speaking. I don't image though, just a visual observer.

Happy to stick to newtonians on dobsonian mounts and refractors over the past few years.

I'm sure the SCT has it's place in the hobby for good reasons though. I know quite a few of our members in this forum have been very happy with theirs. I'm sure they will be "chiming in" soon

3 hours ago, Nyctimene said:

Short period comets (observable more often and reliable) can more often be found near the ecliptic plane:

"The inclination of a comet's orbit with respect to the ecliptic (approximately, the plane spanned by the orbits of the major planets) depends on the origin of the comet. Long-period comets come from the Oort's cloud; since Oort's cloud is spherical, long-period comets approach the inner solar system at random angles as you correctly guessed (note that their orbit can be majorly perturbed as they pass near the giant planets). Short-period comets originate in Kuiper's belt and orbit roughly along the plane of the ecliptic." (quoted from here: /www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=do_all_comets_approach_the_sun_along_the_plane_of_the_ecliptic)

 

Did Charles Messier know this ?

That's a C5+ I think. This web page gives more information (lots more !) on this model and includes a working link to the instruction manual:

http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/

The site also links to other sites which may be of help.

Welcome to the forum by the way

I've often wondered why maksutov-cassegrains are able to deliver such sharp and high contrast views given their relatively large CO %'s. I have assumed that there must be other properties within the optical system and perhaps the lack of secondary support vanes that overcome the CO % size and allow them to excel in this role

I used to have a 150mm F/6 mak-newtonian made in Russia by Intes. 19% central obstruction on that one. Not the same sort of "mak" that is the subject of this though. Mak-newtonians are not "folded" to the extent that the maksutove-cassegrain is.

I'm sure that I broke all the ones that I made last year so probably best not to have any resolutions for 2020

17 minutes ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

John I don't think the O-III is recommended for the California Nebula. I would try the Hb and the UHC but some have suggested just using one filter.

Do you mean just one filter or two filters of the same type Mark ?

Great report !

Oh, for the clouds to clear here as well 🤞 it's been a pretty crummy run of weather for the past week or so.

I think I can fit 1.25" filters into the eye cups of my 11x70's. I have Astronomik O-III, H-B and a UHC in that fitting so I wonder which combo of those would give the best results ?

Thanks Callum - this looks very interesting

There are a lot of good and quite easy to see DSO's that are not on the Messier list. Messier concentrated on the parts of the sky that comets were thought most likely to be seen in, because that is what he was after. His list was just to remind him of stuff which might be mistaken for a comet.

I think that the Caldwell List is probably a more useful one for the budding deep sky observer.

29 minutes ago, Pixies said:

Not specifically 'astro', but v useful nonetheless.

And the smell reminds me of my old Zippo back when I had bad habits!

 

Looks very useful - where is your whitby ?

Thanks for all the bright ideas folks

I very much concur with @Paz about the difficulties of handling these things in the dark. Most of the eyepieces that I use filters with have large, heavily convex lenses close to the bottom of the barrel too so there is another opportunity there to put a mark where you don't want it when attaching the filter

Why do we muck about with this expensive gear with cold hands, in the dark and when we are a bit knackered towards the end of a session ? 

Answer: because we are astronomy nutcases, thats why !

2 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

Not one single item of astronomy equipment this year, not even a book. Bought myself some Celestron Pro 15x70's though 😉

I paid for this one myself as well. If my other half asks, it fell out of a cracker, OK

8 minutes ago, Franklin said:

Wow, that's a filter collection and half!

It is. My collection is much more modest in terms of number because I have not found coloured filters that useful so I don't have those now. I have a neutral density moon filter for outreach sessions and UHC, O-III and H-Beta filters in the 2 inch and 1.25 inch sizes for nebulae enhancement when observing. So just 7 filters. I have a single polarising filter for use with my Herschel Wedge but I keep that in the case with the wedge.

12 minutes ago, Franklin said:

I like the Baader cases that all clip together, great idea and keeps the filters safe, secure and all to hand.

Yes that is a good feature.

My filters are Lumicon, Astronomik (x3) and a Meade 4000 so 3 different box designs and sizes

4 hours ago, Louis D said:

I was super busy over the Holidays with the kids all back in town with their significant others, so I'm just now able to post images of my astro Christmas present:

I'm still evaluating it relative to my venerable 40mm Meade 5000 SWA.

That is a very nice present Louis