John

26 minutes ago, Jiggy 67 said:

This thread started by @John really got me looking online (which I’m sure was his intention whilst he settled down to watch Emmerdale !! 😂) and there really isn’t much there for Astro filters, strange as it’s an obvious need.....definitely a gap in the market 

🤣

Some of the photographic filter cases that I've seen look as if they might do the job and are pretty low cost so not much of a risk.

I've not found anything specifically for astro as yet though.

31 minutes ago, gilesco said:

Oh right... sorry.

Exit stage right...

Thanks for your suggestion though. I didn't make the visual / imaging thing clear in my initial post

Thanks for the replies so far

I am probably making things more complicated by preferring to keep the filters in their original plastic boxes

4 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Mars appeared much bigger when it was closer to us, bide your time, you'll get a good view one day (ok, one night )

Heather

Mars will next be larger than it currently is in September 2022. It reaches opposition in December that year. Until then it's going to be tough to observe and getting tougher.

I have a number of different deep sky filters in both the 1.25 inch and 2 inch sizes. They are in their plastic boxes but those vary in size depending on the brand. 

In the past I have kept them in my eyepiece cases but they are now full of eyepieces so I'm looking for a better arrangement than the old wooden cigar box that they reside in just now.

So I'm interested to find out how other members store their filter collections. Photos are warmly welcomed

33 minutes ago, James1967 said:

Hi Nick, I’m new on here and looking at getting a SW flextube 300 goto.  My concern is the base weight as I’d prefer to put in the car and take 20 mins to a darker sky site though I would use in my back garden too.  Do you know or can estimate the weight of the base (without the OTA on)?  I might have to go for a 250 or even 200 if the 300 weight is too much.  I’m a fairly fit but not muscly 6’2” 53 yr old bloke if that helps.

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Here is a more recent thread on the 300P Synscan dobsonian which may help on the general portability / practicality of these scopes:

2 inch eyepieces with very, very wide fields of view and focal lengths of around 20mm work well even in moderately light polluted skies. I have a 31mm ultra wide that I could use with my 12 inch F/5.3 dob but the 21mm hyper wide gets much more use under my Bortle 5-ish skies.

I usually go straight from 21mm (75x) to 13mm (122x) when using my 12 inch dobsonian. The next step is 8mm (199x) then 6mm (265x) and then 4.7mm (338x) and that is the set that I most often use with that scope.

I've found having more options at higher powers (ie: closer focal lengths) more useful than lots of low / mid range magnifications.

Be prepared to spend as much as the scope cost on eyepieces or more even, unless you are very disciplined.

Which we all are, of course !

4 hours ago, faulksy said:

New ep 🤣 yee haaa

Superb Mike, really superb

6 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

😁 gradually heading towards the 100 degree stuff. 

🤣

Popular upgrades to a stock dob are:

- replace straight though finder with a right angle, correct image one. To save back / neck ache.

- add an illuminated reticule finder alongside the optical finder. Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder are popular.

- replacement focuser - the Bresser dobs come with a better stock focuser than the Skywatchers though so not such a priority on the former brand.

- cheshire eyepiece and / or laser collimator / other tool to ease collimation.

- eyepieces (whole new topic )

The tube, mirrors and mirror cells of my Orion Optics 12 inch F/5.3 dob are still original 

19 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Maybe I missed it, but what is the focal length of the scope you intend to use these eyepieces in?  If it's upwards of 2000mm, then having the 17.5mm and 12.5mm makes sense.  If it's 500mm, not so much.

That was my thought Louis.

21 minutes ago, jock1958 said:

Great news Dave!  I've tried and failed on a number of occasions with my Tak FC-100DL, I shall persevere but I think my 100mm aperture and latitude is against me 😩

I'm around the same latitude as you. As I said in the opening post, my challenge this winter is to spot the Pup star with my FC100-DL and my Skywatcher ED120 because I've not managed it with those scopes as yet.

The challenge just now is to see any stars at all - it's been pretty solidly cloudy for the past few nights

I've used my 100 degree eyepieces in an F/4.8 10 inch and now my F/5.3 12 inch and I've not found coma intrusive or bothersome. I'm sure it's there but not to the degree that I feel compelled to start using a coma corrector

Maybe we need a thread called "Favourite optical accessory other than an eyepiece ?"

It depends on the scope being used. I usually find myself skipping straight from 21mm to 13mm in my 12 inch dobsonian or from 24mm to 14mm in my refractors. I do have nice 17mm eyepieces but I don't find they get a lot of use in my scopes.

I believe that the Morpheus 17.5mm is probably the best in that range so I can understand the temptation though.

4 hours ago, Piero said:

...some of the very best views of the moon I had were when it was full, slightly above the horizon, and using my TV-60 at 15x. In particular, the Moon was coming up from bushes and tree branches with a bird or two crossing the FOV time to time. Yes, it was 100% artistic and 0% scientific, but oh man, how beautiful it was to my eye! 

I had a similar observing experience at my 1st SGL star party. The campsite is overlooked by a hill covered mostly by pine forest. A spotted the Moon rising behind the trees and used a very low magnfication in my Vixen ED102SS to watch it gradually appear peeking out from behind the silhouetted pine trees as it rose. A memorable view 

Hello and welcome to the forum !

Given your location in a dark sky site, your interest in observing deep sky objects and your budget I think a 150 or 200mm dobsonian is the ideal choice. Such scopes provide the most visual performance per £ / Euro spent of any scope type.

A 150mm / 200mm dob will show dozens or even hundreds of deep sky objects and under a really dark sky the brighter ones will look pretty good. Don't expect anything like the images you see though.

Budget for a good guide to the sky to go with your dob.

The problem with a GOTO scope is that the GOTO facility eats a lot of your budget up at the expense of scope aperture: you get a somewhat smaller aperture scope with less deep sky observing potential.

Great stuff Magnus

How is that much more compact overall than an 8 inch dob Michael ?

I've owned both and I don't recall that the EQ mounted SCT was more compact overall

These are all 8 inchers. The SCT is on an alt-az rather than an EQ though. The SCT OTA is shorter but the footprint wider and the overall weight a touch more I think.

All very good scopes though. Maybe it's just down to personal preferences and if the OP want's a change, it's good to have one

Looking back at my notes from the mid 1980's I managed to see quite a lot of stuff with my old Tasco 60mm refractor. All I could afford / justify back then but it got me hooked.

The only 8 inch scope that I can think of that is as portable as an 8 inch dob would be the Celestron 8SE SCT. When I moved from an 8 inch SCT to an 8 inch dob I found the dob provided at least as good if not better performance for visual observing both deep sky and solar system targets. Plus it cooled more quickly as well and the set up was basically plonk it down and start to look though it. I've never aspired to image though so that was not a factor.

Hello and welcome to the forum !

Those are my main interests as well. Those and a bit of fishing now and then 

Hope you enjoy yourself in the Stargazers Lounge

I've just read through the posts in this thread and they do make some very interesting and valid points. Thanks to all who have contributed.

I have owned quite a few smaller aperture scopes over the past few years, while I have often been pleasantly surprised at what they could show, I didn't seem to hang onto the ones that were less than 100mm in aperture for very long.

I don't try and undertake any particularly serious observing programmes and I've often described myself as a "space tourist" but I suppose 100mm and above is where there seems to be enough observing potential to keep me interested for the long term and to keep coming back for more.

From the views expressed in this thread I can see that this is definitely a case of "Your Mileage May Vary" though

2 hours ago, Captain Magenta said:

I’m going to cheat tonight and deploy the 12” newt...

That's a good approach. Once you have seen them with a larger aperture, finding them with smaller apertures becomes a little bit easier.