John

Hope this one does not disappoint.

It depends on how much optical length your current adapter has. If it is a low profile one that just uses a few mm then the Baader will mean that you need a bit more inward focuser travel to get an eyepiece to focus. If your current adapter is high profile then the opposite might apply.

6 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Well said, John! This should be a sticky somewhere!

However, it's great fun discussing the minutiae of those (personal) trade offs 🙂

 

Yes it is as long as we all realize that one persons take on something won't be in any way a definitive one, it';s just one "data point" as they say.

That's one of the main reasons why I've stopped doing reviews now - I realised that what floats my boat is quite probably not going to do the same for others !

The more you observe these targets, the more detail you will see in the. I know this may sound a bit trite but it really is true. I see quite a lot of detail in Messier 13 with my 100mm - 130mm scopes but I have been observing for some years so I guess my eye has become trained to tease the detail out. As Stu says, with globular clusters adding magnification helps to see more detail and the seeing conditions will vary as well.

But observing frequently and becoming familliar with objects is the way to see more detail in them. This applies to all classes of targets and particularly with the planets.

Small apertures can deliver great views but you need practice and persistence to get these. Unless you have a really large aperture scope and observe under dark skies, visual astronomy is rarely a case of "quick wins". It has to be worked at.

Eyepieces are all about trade offs I think. To achieve something outstanding in one area, something else needs to be compromised a little. The trick is to learn what you as an individual prefer and then to research and trial to find what suits you and what does not.

What one person feels is excellent for them will not always find favour with another person at all.

41 minutes ago, John said:

The key thing is the optical length of the Baader adapter vs the optical length of your current one Barry. If they are markedly different, there maybe some issues with eyepieces coming to focus.

The Baader adapter has an optical length of 9.5mm. Your stock 1.25 inch adapter might be longer (possibly a lot longer) than that in which case, using the Baader adapter, you will need to rack your focuser out further to get an eyepiece to focus.

The other thing to check is whether your focuser, without the 1.25" adapter in, is really 2 inches in aperture. Quite a few Skywatcher focusers use a slightly oversize aperture which is why the eyepiece adapters (both 2 inch and 1.25 inch) have that tapered flange fitting at the bottom end. It is possible in that case that the Baader adapter will not fit snugly into the focuser tube.

Sorry about the complexity but Skywatcher do have the habit of using rather non-standard focuser fittings and adapters

 

 

 

I've just remembered that you have upgraded the focuser on your 12 inch so much of the above won't apply now. Sorry about that

The key thing is the optical length of the Baader adapter vs the optical length of your current one Barry. If they are markedly different, there maybe some issues with eyepieces coming to focus.

The Baader adapter has an optical length of 9.5mm. Your stock 1.25 inch adapter might be longer (possibly a lot longer) than that in which case, using the Baader adapter, you will need to rack your focuser out further to get an eyepiece to focus.

The other thing to check is whether your focuser, without the 1.25" adapter in, is really 2 inches in aperture. Quite a few Skywatcher focusers use a slightly oversize aperture which is why the eyepiece adapters (both 2 inch and 1.25 inch) have that tapered flange fitting at the bottom end. It is possible in that case that the Baader adapter will not fit snugly into the focuser tube.

Sorry about the complexity but Skywatcher do have the habit of using rather non-standard focuser fittings and adapters

That's the joy of the dobsonian design - more of your £'s go into the optics, which are what delivers the views of course.

Over the years I've found 6mm to be a really useful focal length in a wide variety of scopes and there is no BST Starguider in that length. I would much rather put the £47 towards a decent 6mm (eg: a WO SPL perhaps) than buy the 3.2mm (which would not get anywhere near as much use) to "finish the set off". Likewise I would prefer to have something like a 30 Vixen NPL over the rather ordinary 25mm BST Starguider which costs about the same ( I owned both of these recently so was able to compare them).

But I do realize that some folks just have to have "the set" and I have been there myself with Tele Vue Plossls, Nagler T6's, Wide Fields and even the Ethos of which I've owned all the focal lengths at one point. Expensive habit, that was

Anyway, this is veering rather off the topic of Steve's helpful 24-26mm eyepiece comparison. Apologies for that Steve

1 hour ago, merlin100 said:

I've already  got the 3.2mm, 8mm, 15mm and the 18mm should be here in a few days.  I think the 5mm and 12mm should be my limit.  What do you think, John?

I can't recall the scope you have ?

(sorry)

11 minutes ago, Stu said:

That was my idea 😇😇🤣🤣

(said in a comedy Vic Reeves voice for anyone who remembers)

I believe you have a knob with your name on it as well ?

4 minutes ago, Sunnydays said:

Thanks so much!! Would going in 5-10mm increments , lets starting at 25mm, 15mm, 10mm be a good start, to get more clarity? I was trying to look at Saturn yesterday with the 25mm but, was not clear and focusing did not do much?

If you can add a 7mm for high power observing, those 4 focal lengths would give you a good range. Later you might also want to add a 32mm for lower power observing as well.

4-5 eyepieces of focal lengths at or around these focal lengths will give you a versatile set.

It does get dark here but not for very long. 2-3 hours of observing and the light starts to infuse the eastern sky.

Over the last few nights I've been able to see the milky way faintly running through Cygnus somewhere between midnight and 1:00 am. Had some decent views of the Veil Nebula with 100mm - 130mm scopes, with the help of the O-III filter of course.

Still, its only going to get better now we are past the solstice and observing the deep sky in shorts is quite nice

28 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

If I’m still ultra keen next year, I’ll add a frac to the mix. Not too fussed with lunar, but for definitely interested in double stars and planetary. 

Or a mak-cassegrain - they are pretty good at double stars and planetary as well.

Neat - that was introduced after the early versions that I tried.

2 minutes ago, johninderby said:

They offer the couterweight with and without flange so those buying the extra saddle can buy just the shaft as they don’t need the flange.

How does the shaft fit with the extra saddle installed - does it screw into the saddle ?

3 minutes ago, merlin100 said:

I must admit, I do like the thought of having the full BST StarGuider set, so that means ALL of them.😉

Cherry pick the best ones and the ones that you will use. That goes for any range IMHO.

Getting fixated on owning whole ranges is a bit of a mugs game, having been there and done that

2 hours ago, Stardaze said:

Just looking at the separation of zeta herc compared with epsilon lyrae and it's significantly tighter at 1.4" (EL is 2.4") so that does seem a good one to go at? Is it a difficult prospect with my dob?

It is a pretty difficult and tight double star to split. The component stars are uneven brightness which makes the already challenging 1.4 arc second split even harder to discern. It should be doable in your scope provided that the collimation is good, the scope is cooled and that the seeing is steady. Epsilon Lyrae is much easier. You could try Delta Cygni and Pi Aquilae to hone your skills - they are more challenging than Epsilon Lyrae but not quite as challenging as Zeta Herculis. Once you have cracked all those try Lambda Cygni - that's a 1 arc second split currently !

I have to say that I find refractors make splitting these challenging doubles stars easier because of the "clean" star images they present. Newtonians can do it though, you just need to look past the scatter from the secondary and it's supports.

I have flagged this up for FLO's attention.

Stocks of equipment are under pressure currently because of the worldwide pandemic of course so while FLO will do their best I'm sure, the remedy might not be as quick coming as usual.

This worked OK:

This was pushing the pillar too far:

2 inch steel tube tripod in both cases.

30 minutes ago, parallaxerr said:

There's definitely a pattern forming John. Any sort of piers or extensions are prime candidates for vibration issues apparently, that SW Pier being the longest of them all!

 

I try and do without pillars wherever possible for this reason.

I have the 8 inch for the EQ6 but I've yet to use it.

The AZ100 is already a reasonably tall mount. The Bray Tablet was very squat as is the APM Maxload. Very different approaches to the AZ100 though:

Hardwood tripods dampen any vibrations that do occur very well - that's the joy of them (as well as their looks) and also why ash wood is used for hammer and pick axe handles

I'm still tempted to get my T-Rex onto a Berlebach just for the way the setup looks, as much as anything else

Ben, you make a very good point there

A couple of years back I discussed comparions between the 8mm BST Starguider with my 8mm Ethos and basically was told that it was an unfair comparison - £50 vs £500+

Actually, the BST did rather well albeit over a somewhat smaller AFoV

Mind you, when you do a "group test" you can only use the eyepieces you have available. I was very lucky that FLO would lend me stuff for my reviews

All credit to Steve for compiling and posting this report 

8 hours ago, markse68 said:

That’s a nice pic John- id have that on my wall 😉

It must be that big curved lens that the 7, 10 and 14 have I reckon- high brightness objects cause internal reflection that beams out as secondary image moving faster through optical gearing in opposite direction. For some reason the 14 isn’t as noticeable but I bet the 10 will do the same or similar. That’s frustrating.

I find the 10mm through to 3.5mm excellent even with some optical design differences. I've avoided the 14mm and 20mm because of their field curvature which is quite different to the shorter focal lengths and does not suit certain scope designs that well:

At least you saw something of the Veil so you know where to find it now.

The transparency here last night was poor so I didn't bother with faint fuzzies and stuck to double stars.