John

Thanks. I think it was - I ought to keep better records. The one of the straight wall was definitely with the dob. The ones that I was most pleased with were the transit of Mercury, which I only managed to get a few minutes of due to clouds and getting the phase of Mercury when it was just a few arc seconds in apparent diameter. Both these were with my 100mm refractor.

I frequently use a 7.2mm 21.5mm zoom with the Baader 2.25x barlow on double stars. I has become one of my most used eyepiece combos in my refractors. I get a 9.5 - 3.2mm zoom which is a great range of magnifications for splitting double stars. 95x - 281x with my ED120 for example. I was not fond of the Baader Fine Tuning rings myself, at least when used with the Hyperion eyepieces. Opening the optics of an eyepiece up frequently seems to me to be asking for problems with dust ingress at some point. I have found another good use for the FT rings but that would be off topic somewhat ! This is the zoom and barlow combo that I use:

My refractors have to come off their mounts otherwise our dining room would look like Ed Tings: Personally I would be fine with that (except perhaps the Bear ?) but there are two of us living here so I have to compromise, a bit. Fortunately where I observe is just a few paces away from where the scopes and mounts are so its just a minute or two to get one outside and setup

This was some time ago. I don't have either the Porta I or that particular 100mm F/9 now. The Porta II is designed to be able to move between tripods. I don't think the Porta I was. Sounds like you have improved the situation somewhat though adjustment though ?

I use refractors when I want to observe as close as a "perfect" image that the aperture can produce as possible. I use reflectors when I want lots of light grasp and resolution and to see things that a refractor (that I can afford) cannot show me. The largest refractor that I can afford and handle is around 150mm in aperture. The largest reflector that I can afford and handle is around 300mm so 4x the light grasp and twice the resolution. They are all proper telescopes and all have strengths and weaknesses. To become a devotee of a single design is a mistake in my opinion. You miss out on stuff

I'm pretty sure that the ones on top are 1/4". The camera mount attached to the rear ring in the picture uses a 1/4" screw up through the tube ring and though the knurled wheel. The front tube ring will be the same.

Here are a few of mine. The phone is an old Samsung S3 Mini. The scopes vary between 100 - 130mm refractors and my 12 inch dobsonian:

We really need a Discmount vendor in the UK

FPL-53, paired with the correct mating element glass (vitally important) can produce colour correction about 2x better than FPL-51, all other things being equal. Some of the triplets using FPL-51 actually produce more colour than the Skywatcher 120mm ED doublets which use FPL-53 of course.

I've seen surface detail on Jupiter with a 60mm refractor so 127mm is plenty. Sometimes the details take time to tease out though so be prepared to spend time studying the planet carefully for some time to get the best from it. The Great Red Spot for example can prove quite elusive even when it is on "our" side of Jupiter.

I'll photoshop one in ! The mount might break though .....

Have one of mine

Are you going for click lock on all the connections ?

An aluminium tripod does not help. I found the Porta I worked well with my F/6.5 102mm refractor but when I put the 100mm F/9 on it, it was not at all stable. The lenght of the tube makes a lot of difference to stability and vibration due to the lever arm forces that the long tube generates, which put a lot more strain on the mount axis and the tripod hub. If your 100mm was F/5 the Probably work just fine.

Those simple laser collimation rigs work well. If the beam stays on the same spot at about 10 metres for a full 360 degree rotation of the collimator you are good to go ! My understanding is that the main advantege of the laser method is that it is less prone to errors introduced by sloppy eyepiece fittings etc.

When I've used the laser collimation method, the shadow of the "donut" has been a bit indistinct. I found reducing the lighting in the room helped to see it more clearly. My laser collimator does not have an adjustable brightness - it's either off or on ! My method, when I use it, is similar to this one: http://www.smartavtweaks.com/RVBL.html Some barlows work better than others and some not at all. Cheap ones seem to do quite well !

This is my zoom setup:

Nice shots ! I've only relatviely recently discovered that the mobile phone camera is capable of producing some pretty good lunar and solar images just held steadily to the eyepiece and leaving the phone firmware to do it's thing. I even managed to snap Venus and Mercury this way during the recent conjunction of those two planets. I've found a zoom eyepiece and simple (cheap !) e.bay phone clamp works quite well. The zoom eyepiece can be adjusted quickly and the mobile cameras digital zoom helps fill the screen as well. I'm not going to turn into an imager any time soon but it's simple, quick, cheap, does no need wires and power supplies and can add to the fun of lunar observing

Glad you have improved things If you wanted to go a bit further without going as far as a Berlebach, you could consider an EQ6 2 inch steel tripod or perhaps a CG5 one (as you have the HEQ5 - EQ6 "converter" in the shape of the pillar). These 2 inch tripods are both taller and quite a bit more stable and sturdy than the 1.75 inch steel tubed HEQ5 ones. a quarter inch does not sound a lot but it makes a surprising amount of difference to the setup and of course the mounts performance. A lot less £'s than a Berlebach as well. Just a thought

My 150mm F/12 - EQ6 - Meade Giant Field Tripod combo weighed something like that. I feared that it might crack the patio slabs ! Not an alt-az setup though so I can't post a pic here

This might help. It goes further than you need to but the part about the corrector is relevant: https://astromart.com/reviews/telescopes/show/disassembly-of-an-sct-childs-play

Wonderful setup Matthew 70kg - "grab and groan"

That is a very interesting link I can't honestly recall what scope I used the 16mm UWAN in I have read elsewhere that it is considered the weakest of that 82 degree range but I didn't think of it as poor and it did compare well to the 16mm T5 Nagler that I replaced it with. I would have compared the two in the same scope during the short time that I owned them both. At the time I did kind of regret the additional funds that I had spent acquiring the 16mm Nagler. I have also used and owned the 28mm Nirvana and the 4mm and thought those very good eyepieces, perhaps a touch better than the 16mm ? Sorry that you did not get on with this eyepiece @Ags and sincere apologies if my reports on it misled you in anyway Perhaps Ernest will be a better guide than me for your future purchases ?

Totting up the current cost, I'm getting a touch over £1500 for: - The mount - A Losmandy / Vixen clamp - 2x 3.7 kg counter weights (my intended scope is 9.5 kg) - Counterweight bar and mounting plate - A Berlebach Uni 28 tripod in EQ6 fitting. Does that sound about right or have I double counted something ?

Not sure what the design commonality between the AZ100 and the T-Rex is. The quality of engineering is comparable as is the price (but you get a tripod with the T-Rex) and the load bearing ability is similar. No counterweights needed with the T-Rex so a lighter overall setup but no dual scope option with the T-Rex. The T-Rex is out of production now - they rarely show up for sale so I pounced on this one when an SGL member offered it for sale earlier this year. Best Alt-Azimuth mount that I've ever used with the mighty 130mm F/9.2