John

3 minutes ago, Nerf_Caching said:

 

Yes I was in Hong Kong haha. I was actually photographing the Flame and Horsehead Nebula in Orion with that setup.

Not with a mobile phone, I'll bet !

I guess we will have to stop advising newbies that very high magnification is not going to bring any benefits ?

But then again, with entry level scopes and inexperienced eyes, perhaps that is still sound advice ?

So all these media reports of "see the comet this weekend" are, as ever, for the UK at least, a bit misleading

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1282729/comet-swan-how-to-see-watch-green-comet-swan-uk-flyby-tonight

15 minutes ago, Stu said:

My club recently bought a 12” Zhummel scope and it seems easier and more successful to do the final collimation with the locking screws rather than the spring ones. The springs seem fairly weak and it shifts a lot unless you lock it down, which changes the collimation so simplest to use them to fine tune it.

I plan to replace the springs at some point to improve things a bit.

Zhumell are made by GSO who became notorious for weak primary collimation springs. My Meade Lightbridge 12 had the same mirror and cell. I uprated the springs, went for "Bobs Knobs" to replace the stock ones and stopped using the locking screws and things improved. You could see the mirror cell flexing as you applied the locking screws which was not good !

Orion Optics put a sticker next to their locking screws that advises "finger tight only". I've gone for "don't use at all unless transporting" instead.

2 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

I know Orion Optics UK get a bit of stick for their delivery time with people.

But I must say I have found my Dob to hold its collimation so well . Even when moved seems to be great for holding collimation.  Hardly ever needs adjustment. And the mirrors are such quality also.

 

 

 

Mine is the simple, older type, and does a great job. Small mass as well.

Orion Optics scopes are good but do depreciate quite quickly and, having had some issues with the company on smaller matters, I was happy to buy a pre-owned one for that reason as well.

54 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Seriously, they are tight on eye-relief, a bit like my 6mm Ortho's.....

The Nagler zooms have 10mm of eye relief. A 6mm ortho has around 5 mm.

I guess I'd better get a mak

Comet C/2020 F8 Swan is currently in the constellation Triangulum. Not above the horizon until the early hours as far as I know.

8 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

That’s interesting you got on with one and not the other, John. Any particular reason?

I didn't own both at the same time so I suspect it was more that I was going through a period when I wanted more AFoV and a larger eye lens than the zoom offered.

Maybe I've "grown up" a bit since then

I think the performance of the two is pretty much identical.

28 minutes ago, Pixies said:

Blimey guys, thanks very much!

I've got a lot of things to decide on now - I'll look at total costs, delivery times, etc.

One thing though. The finder bracket on my Bresser 8" looks a little different to most others. It's the full sized one, rather than the one with only 2 bolts (see below). Can anyone confirm that the Baader bracket will fit this?

Meade used to use those on their refractors (metal rather than plastic). The Baader shoe should fit OK but you will have a couple of other holes to plug. Of course the original mount for the Celestron Illuminated RACI might well also bolt on there OK but you would need to put something between the base of that and the scope tube to stop the mount denting the tube.

What a great review Matthew

I've owned a couple of the 3-6mm Nagler zooms and currently I have the 2-4mm version.

For some odd reason I didn't take to the 3-6mm ones but now I really love my 2-4mm. They performed consistently well though so perhaps it's me that has changed !

I didn't think that I would use the 2-4mm that much but my refractors seem very able to soak up high magnifications so it's used practically every time I have a refractor out and reasonably often with my 12 inch dob as well.

If a 3-6mm came up I might be tempted again - there is something about their form and function that is very appealing

What drew me to these zooms was an old 2004 Tom Trusock review where he compared the 3-6mm with TMB Supermonocentrics. The latter did just about beat the Nagler zoom for planetary observing but it was very close I seem to recall and that made me think that the zoom flexibility (which is seamless of course despite the click stops) pulled the overall verdict back towards the Tele Vue, even if not all the way there. Remarkable 5 element design that Al Nagler managed to come up with.

Here is Tom's review for any that are interested:

https://www.cloudynights.com/documents/tmb2.pdf

Fortunately my 12 inch Orion Optics dob is a bit smaller / more compact than the 12 inch dob that I owned previously (a Meade Lightbridge 12) so my other half thought it an improvement.

Either that or she gave up at that point !

I have told her that I might bring the society 18 inch back home for a while ...... now that would take up some room !

22 minutes ago, johninderby said:

In the US the Orion Atlas EQ-G is the same as the EQ6 and they do a black extenstion.

https://www.amazon.com/Orion-7394-Atlas-Telescope-Extension/dp/B0069VZ6QW

That is the one that I have.

22 minutes ago, johninderby said:

That is the correct extension and fits any EQ6 mount. Used to be available in black but hard to find the black ones nowadays.

I have one of those with my T-Rex mount (also an EQ6 fitting mount). Works very well except that it's a fiddle to attach to the mount - the top plate of the extension has to come off to get to the bolt. I think the answer is to leave it bolted onto the mount all the time but I'm reluctant to to that because I don't need it all the time

3 minutes ago, DirkSteele said:

I really need to learn to smile.  Most people would have a beaming grin the day they took delivery of that scope!  😄

 

Given the weight of the 180, as awesome as the 200 would be, I would never be able to travel with it.

I'm sure you were grinning a lot on the inside Matthew - I certainly would have been

I use the Celestron Illuminated RACI finder on my 12 inch dobsonian.

I don't use the mount that it comes with though. I took the finder out and fitted it into a Skywatcher 9x50 RACI mount. It fitted OK but the Celestron finder is a little shorter bodywise than the Skywatcher 9x50 RACI so it is just long enough, but only just. I also had to make my own rubber rings from an old bicycle inner tube to hold the finder in the front part of the Skywatcher finder mount. In it's standard mount the Celestron finder uses a thick rubber O ring which is much too thick to fit inside the Skwatcher mount.

The Celestron finder is a little heavier than the Skywatcher so be aware of that if balance is critical. The eyepiece and diagonal arrangement are quite different to accommodate the illuminated reticule.

Its a good finder though and I find the illumination nice to have although you can use the finder without turning it on.

Some photos of my setup:

The Rowan AZ100 is EQ6 tripod compatible as I recall ?

19 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

... I’m intrigued with TeleVue eyepieces....

I caught that bug quite a few years ago and it has cost me dearly

There are other quality brands / ranges around now as well though - Pentax, Nikon, some of the Explore Scientific, some of the APM's, etc, etc.

I believe the profit margins on astro gear are relatively small, at least at the retailer level.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

John, you’ve clearly moved on to intermediate level imaging, what with your fancy correct image and titles!! 😉

Signed limited edition prints are available Stu ......

Its the usual thing with optical quality. Most of the time there is little in it but differences start to show when the conditions are good and when you are going for challenging targets.

The one in NGC 3643 should be OK as it's still mag 12.5. I could see it (just about) with my ED120 refractor the other night. The host galaxy is very faint though. The one in M61 is mag 14 so may or may not be doable. If you get a good dark night then it is possible I reckon.

3 minutes ago, Neil P said:

Mmm 200 APM / LZOS, now that is a serious dream scope.

My mistake, Matthew's is "only" the 180mm. Still pretty dreamy:

Hope Matthew does not mind me sharing this. We had a "show us your LZOS scope" thread a while back:

It's the short dovetail bar that the supply. Pretty useless really.

OK - that's answered the question for me as well. The Maxload makes sense with a scope like that. Matthew uses one for his 200mm APM / LZOS.

Interesting find Steve.

The DGM NBP is a very good UHC so I would take other filters from them seriously.

So far I have not found a filter that helps with galaxies but I have not tried that one !