John

Thanks Stu. The RACI's do have an OTA though. Just ignore the prism at the end

I thought the Telrad used a flat mirror and a lens to focus the reticule onto the display window ?. This is from the Company Seven website: 1. Red L.E.D., 2. Telrad reticle, 3. Adjustable tilt flat mirror, 4. focusing lens, 5. display window inclined at 45 degrees shown with simulated projected reticle.

Tripods are very popular currently for converting into floor lamps. These folks need to realise that the trick is to remove the telescope first

On the plus side, there will be a tidal wave of used equipment for sale in due course ........

I don't find this at all. I find them both ergonomically easier and the view through them relates directly with what my eyes see, what my star charts (non digital) show and what my red dot / illuminated reticule finder shows. I now use RACI finders on all my scopes The most important thing though is to find something that works for you and there will be variations on that person to person

That is interesting. On the animation that is on that website the central star and the star next to it (line of sight ?) seem to be fading as well. Unless something is gradually obscuring them ?

The red dot finder will show the correct image. The image through the scope will be left-right reversed. This is normal when using a mirror diagonal. To get a fully corrected view through the scope you would need to use a prism like this: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/skywatcher-90-erecting-prism.html Personally I think the regular mirror diagonal is better for astronomical use if you can adjust to the reversed view. I'll leave others to advise on the other questions you raise.

A subtle but lovely drawing David. Even at or around opposition I think Mars is a challenging world to observe and your drawing captures what often has been the level of contrast that we have been trying to tease out visually. Nice work

Thanks so much Dave I did start off with the silly user name as you recall. As soon as I got a chance I changed it though ! The Bresser 127L was a great buy - a proper big refractor ! I'm not very photogenic I'm afraid but I've had the Vixen nearly as long as I've been a member here and longer than any of my other scopes so I thought it was an apt photo. Also a happy, warm evening in July last year at the Bristol AS observatory all on my own observing the lunar eclipse. Managed to get one of my few images through the scope on that occasion. Nice memories

Thanks Rob - you have even more SGL longevity than I do !

As long as the finder is aligned accurately with the main scope it can be placed where you like. It is useful to have the finder / finders close to the eyepiece though so that you can move your eye quickly from the finder to the eyepiece. Right angled finders are much easier to use on a dobsonian, and other scope designs for that matter. On my 12 inch dobsonian I have my two finders close to each other and also close to the eyepiece:

Thanks very much Stu I don't know what the membership was back then - maybe 100 or so ? I guess members like @Ant, @GazOC or @russ might know - they were here before I was.

I've just realised that I have just passed my 15th year of membership of the Stargazers Lounge. I joined on the 28th of November 2005. This was my 1st post https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/1422-its-nice-to-be-here/ I'd just like to say a big THANK YOU to First Light Optics, the admins and the moderators for creating and maintaining this amazing place and also to all the members here who have helped me, put up with me, replied to my posts, been polite when I've (often) been mistaken, joined in when I've been excited about something and generally made this forum the most important contribution that there has been to my enjoyment of the hobby. Thank you very much indeed folks John

Thanks to those who have found and linked to an archive version of the original article

I don't use a tracking mount personally. Others might though ?

As a lifetime visual observer I have often found myself wondering the opposite - am I missing something by not doing some imaging as well ? I think the main reason that I have not done more than some very, very basic stuff is that I much prefer using telescopes with little or no tech attached to them. Undriven alt-azimuth mounts, no GOTO, no electric apart from the batteries in my torch and my RDF. But I do enjoy looking at the outputs from those who do image so I sincerely hope you all keep doing it, despite the challenges

I agree. There is no substitute for finding out for yourself if at all possible I was very lucky that FLO loaned me all those eyepieces over the years. It would have been an expensive business assembling the various sets that I've been able to try out and report back on.

I'll be very interested to see what you think of the XW 20 I went for Tele Vue's in the focal lengths above 10mm because of the field curvature reports in the longer XW's but I have not actually used the 14 or 20 so they might not be a problem for me. I have owned the 8.5mm and 12mm Pentax XF's which did show FC so those might have swayed my choices as well. It's interesting to see how the optical properties of the XW range vary across the focal lengths:

Generally you need around 100mm of inwards focuser travel to be able to focus when using a binoviewer without adding a barlow lens element or similar to the binoviewer. SCT's and mak-cassegrains tend to have lots of focus travel so this is more straightforward on those designs. Refractors and newtonians can struggle.

I have owned all the Ethos eyepieces at one point apart from the 10mm. I still own the 21, 13, 8 and 6. I've found them all be of superb quality. The differences that Don mentions are very slight I suspect. I didn't really notice them to be honest. Glad we got off the subject of dodgy 1970's fashion

I have used my 1.25 inch Lunt wedge with my ED120 refractor a number of times without any problem. The heat sink gets pretty warm but that is what it is meant to do. I use a single polarising filter on the eyepiece so control the final image brightness. Some folks love the Baader Continuum filter as an alternative to the polarising one. I take the finder off my scope when using the wedge and never leave the scope unattended.

The quandary begins when you get what you think is good collimation with one device then find that the other does not agree. You then get the scope collimated with the other device only to find that the original one thinks it is off At least you can use a star test to act as a "referee"

Great post Neil I wonder what it is like for those who live under skies that are clear for many nights of the year ? Here we grab whatever is going and make the best of it. I guess if you have many clear nights at your disposal you get more picky and look for a certain degree of transparency or steady seeing before setting up ?

Nice one Stu - congratulations

Me too. Explore Scientific gets the award for the biggest box though - I could store quite a few of my Tele Vue and Pentax boxes in the box that contained the ES 17mm 92 degree whopper