John

I use my refractors without a diagonal when I want to remove that component from the light path, eg: for star testing, collimation checking etc.

I've tried to get a collection of diagonals that have minimal negative impact on the image quality because I much prefer to have one on the scope when I'm actually observing though it !

3 minutes ago, RobH2020 said:

John bumping a very old thread of yours here 😀 found it when Googling this topic...

Did you ever make that camping mat light shield? Do you have any photos I could use for inspiration if so? And did it help?

Cheers!

Rob

Where did those 11 years go !

I actually purchased one of the semi-circular ones instead from Astroboot and it has served me very well:

31 minutes ago, laudropb said:

I better keep hold of my 3.4 then. I bought this to try them out but I just did not get on with the 10 mm eye relief.

10mm eye relief is pretty good for a 3.4mm eyepiece. An ortho of that focal length would have about 2mm. But if you wear glasses when observing 10mm is usually not enough. I think glasses wearers would find many of these "top tier" short focal length eyepieces very challenging to use. Luckily the DeLite's, Delos's and Pentax XW's are in the next tier down (so still very good) and have a lot more eye relief

Getting at the azimuth bearing of a Giro mount is not easy !

There is a trick to it - I'll try and find a link to the method.

Using a barlow often requires a re-adjustment of focus and if this is quite substantial then you might run out of focuser travel.

Slow motions are very useful I agree. I can cope OK without if the mount motion is smooth on both axis.

I'm delighted with my T-Rex which suits my 130mm F/9.2 perfectly. The Ercole and the Skytee II carried it OK but the T-Rex showed me what a top end alt-az mount can do. Unfortunately the T-Rex is out of production and getting on for AZ100 in terms of pricing if you can find one:

Hello and welcome to the forum

I agree with the above - stick to using the 20mm and 12.5mm eyepieces with the barlow lens only being used with the 20mm. The 4mm and the barlow lens used with the 12.5mm eyepiece produce too much magnification to get a clear and useful image with a 50mm aperture scope.

It is a "bird-jones" design on a rather flimsy mount.

The 2nd review is the accurate one. Have a search on here to find more about them, eg:

The Ercole specs say lubricant-free bearings.

"The GIRO-Ercole mount differs through the new radial/axial bearing without lubrication. Inside their are high quality plain bearings which counteracts the rotation and a lateral load. Furthermore the support points and length of bearing has been extended significantly. So the mount can carry more weight."

5 minutes ago, Paz said:

Nice scopes, and I like the dobsonian on an equatorial platform set up.

They work well

I'll say it again, there is still a niche for a good capacity alt-azimuth mount, with slow motion controls, that is priced somewhere between the Skytee II / Ercole and the £1K plus units like the AZ100.

I'm glad that I hung onto my Skytee II. Far from perfect but it does what it does competently and has a good capacity for it's price once the saddles are replaced and it's on a stronger tripod.

I very nearly bought the 3.3mm TOE a little while back. Like Mike, I've not had a great Tak eyepiece experience to fall back on though.

Anyway, I'm happy with what I've got eyepiece-wise now

"There will always be grass that looks a little greener"

Interesting report

The seeing here last night was pretty poor - I could not usefully use more than 120x on either Saturn or Mars and Jupiter was more like 80x.

Amazing how much difference 40 miles or so can make.

They both sound like superb instruments

Shame. I guess they were a "niche" product but at least they were available unlike most of the now "legendary" planetary performers.

They will soon become very expensive items and very hard to get like the ZAO's and Pentax XO's have become.

Unless .............. something else is found / launched that performs in the same way

I observed the pair quite close together at 2:30 am this morning. Seeing was not up to much but Mars showed some detail even at 100x with the 90mm refractor.

Nice pairing but could have done with steadier seeing.

8 minutes ago, merlin100 said:

I guess it must the the Equatorial Belts on the Jovian disk, that I'm seeing.  Would it be fair to say that if the collimation was out, that I wouldn't see them?

The two main belts are the first thing you see on Jupiter. I used to see them with my 60mm refractor quite easily.

I would say that even a scope that is out of collimation would still show them. The finer details and lesser belts, maybe not.

Try a star test as @AGS suggests. Polaris is a good one to use because it stays still. Use around 200x and rack through focus a little either side and compare the views. Concentric rings and a central secondary shadow either side of sharp focus are good signs.

If you can split Epsilon Lyrae then things are probably not far off.

23 minutes ago, merlin100 said:

One thing that strikes me as odd, is that I can make out the 2 orange bands on Jupiter and the rings of Saturn at 150x magnification (this evening), when the gas giants are low in the sky - yet I can't see any details on the Martian disk, even though it's a lot nearer (allowing for size and magnitude variation). 

The details on Mars are more subtle than Jupiter's two main cloud belts. Saturn's rings are very strong contrast features. Saturn's surface belts are somewhat tougher to make out than Jupiter's. Jupiter's festoons are a bit like Mars darker areas:

35 minutes ago, Alan White said:

Ade, it could well be the lightness of the scopes used, sometimes more mass makes things run more smoothly.

That's a good point Alan. I remember having both my ED120 and an ED150 on the mount when I was testing the latter and the mount seemed very smooth on both axis then.

Maybe these things do better when heavily loaded ?

Not that I'm going to lash out on an ED150 just to act as a counterweight to the ED120 though !

Wonderful observation and sketching skills Mike

You must be one of the foremost planetary observers and recorders in the UK currently I would think.

(that's a sincere remark)

I ought to add that my Altair Sabre II had this as well so they are not immune from it.

I ought not to like using my Skytee II more than the wonderfully designed and made Ercole but I have to concede that it (the ST2) is my preferred mount and handles long, heavy scopes a little better as well

My Giro Ercole has a bit of this. I've owned three now and they have all had it to some extent. I have come to the conclusion that this is a characteristic of the design. I use counterweights to minimise it. Now that I know that it's there I can deal with it and tracking is OK. I have asked on other forums but not had any good suggestions about a cure.

I was thinking about getting in touch with Tele Optik and asking their advice

  http://www.donelasci.de/teleskop-tecnica.html

Having read a number of really positive reports on these mounts, with no mention of it, I was a little surprised to come across this issue with more than one example. I can't recall my Giro II having it but that was a long time ago so maybe it did

Just noticed your deliberate typo Andrew - "while light"

Unless that's another form of observing that I've not come across 

1 hour ago, Highburymark said:

Looks like a very nice set up for white light John -  is that your 7.2-21.5 zoom? 

Thanks Mark.

Yes. That zoom, sometimes combined with the 2.25x barlow, is probably my most used eyepiece day and night, except when the 12 inch dobsonian is in use.

On it's own for solar it gives 47x - 139x with this scope. A very useful range

I'll probably wear it out in due course and have to buy another !

What brand of crayford focuser is that ?

1 hour ago, chiltonstar said:

... Oh for a bit of elevation!

Chris

Nice image anyway Chris

Here you go: