John

One of the things you can note from images like that is just how much fainter the HH and IC 434 is. And the Flame can be pretty hard to see in less than dark skies ! The sketches here are the closest I've found to what I managed to observe of it with my 12 inch: http://www.deepskywatch.com/Astrosketches/horsehead-nebula-sketch.html No "Chess Knight" head for me - just the vaguest indications of a "bite" out of the faint glow of IC 434.

For less than £100 (used) you can get £2K views (and I own a Tak !)

I can see this object with my 100mm refractor so it is visible in your scope (which is why I mentioned it as a possible target). At low power (which you would use to find it) it looks like a slightly bloated star. At 100x or more it is clearly a patch of condensed nebulosity with a tiny point of light shining from the centre of it - the central star. Even if you can't quite make out the central star, the nebula itself is clearly not "star like" once you apply some magnification. The sketch that I posted in your other thread (also below) is quite an accurate represention of the visual view although darker skies will make it pop out more readily. I didn't find that a filter helped with this one, other than loosing the central star. Here is a more detailed finder chart:

The Zennox is a 76mm newtonian with a 700mm focal length. The brand is not associated with quality instruments really. The Skywatcher is a competant telescope from a respected brand with a good quality primary mirror of 130mm in diameter. For a start it will gather more than 300% more light than the 76mm Zennox which is a huge advantage for astronomy. If you can move to the Explorer 130m or something like it, I think you will find observing a whole range of objects a lot more rewarding.

You are keen Baz - 2:30 am !!!! Moonlight does drown out a lot of DSO's even if the moon itself is on the other side of the sky. Sometimes you can see just about that they are there but they are far from their best. The Owl can be tough to see even when it is dark. It is another nebula that a UHC or even better an O-III filter works wonders on though.

Good report Steve I have one of those zooms and I can say that it works pretty well at night too ! I add the Baader 2.25x barlow to it and get a very useful 9.5mm - 3.2mm zoom. Great for splitting double stars.

It's Sheikh Rattle and Roll

I don't know if this helps - it relates to the CR2 focuser I believe:

The "Cats Eye" planetary nebula (NGC 6543) in Draco is small but nice. With relatively small scopes you can also see the central star at higher magnifications. It seems to survive moonlight quite well too and its on the opposite side of the sky to the moon.

Do you mean the two closer stars of Tegmine ? These are quite a tough target. Harder than Izar I think. This is a sketch by Nick Cox with a 6 inch refractor:

One of the good features about the Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas (not an app but a book !) is that it has a clever system of indicating the visibility of the targets shown on the maps. It's not cheap but it is one of the best out there. This is from the FLO description: "...It is an innovative, practical tool to choose and find stars, star clusters, nebulae and galaxies. Usually, deep sky objects are shown with just a standard symbol in the star charts. This atlas is different: all objects are shown according to their actual visibility. Four main visibility classes separate out objects that can be seen through 4-, 8- and 12-inch telescopes. Within each visibility class, the objects are labeled in different type weights and using graduated shades and colors for the symbols - the bolder the label or the darker the symbol, the easier it is to see the object...." https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/interstellarum-deep-sky-atlas-desk-edition.html The challenge is (which the above addresses) is that the stated magnitude figures are not always a reliable guide to whether an object is easy or difficult to see. Face on galaxies such as M101 and M33 are classic examples of this.

The offset on many scopes is "built in" by offsetting the position that the secondary is attached to the mounting boss. So Magnus is replicating the approach that Skywatcher and others use.

You could say that about many of the more difficult astro targets I think. After all most are no more than just another faint pinpoint of light, a vague patch of fuzzy light or a very subtle contrast difference. Most non-astronomers would wonder why we bother with such things I suppose its the same in most hobbies though - a hole in one at golf, a fish close to the record in angling, a rare bird or plant spotted. The possibility of such things keeps people trying I reckon

I'm out with my 130mm frac but clouds meant that I missed that occultation. I'm right on the edge of a cloud layer tonight. It is shifting very slowly in the right direction (ie: more clear sky showing) but its a slow process.

I'm no imager (or NV user) but I understand that the HH is not particularly difficult to image. It's just darn hard to see visually without electronic assistance. Still, if it was easy then it wouldn't be a challenge, would it ?

If it is the original, non-GOTO version of the HEQ5 then the motors and the control board need to be upgraded as well to make it GOTO, not just the handset.

Here is a photo of the scope with the extension tube in place (from the First Light Optics website):

As above. The eyepiece should be fully inserted and the scope should have an extension tube supplied which needs to be in place for eyepieces to come to focus. I have seen this issue mentioned somewhere else recently with regard to the Bresser dobsonians.

They have such a lot of eye relief that I found that I needed to add a TV eye cup extender to position my eye correctly and consistently to get the best out of the TV 32mm plossl.

The only thing I would say is don't let the pondering of the theory get in the way of developing practical experience I get a little lost by some of the optical and physics theory if I'm honest about it. I feel much more comfortable when I get behind a scope and getting on with the practical business of trying to see things.

Fair enough. I think quite a few on the forum have a similar approach, and why not ?

When I was testing the SLV 6mm for the forum a few years back I compared it extensively with the Baader Genuine Ortho 6mm which FLO had loaned me for the purposes. Over several sessions I could see no differences at all in the performance of these two excellent eyepieces. With the additional eye relief of the SLV and it's larger eye lens it was more relaxing to use so I would have happily chosen it over the ortho on that occasion. I was rather taken aback by the SLV 6mm as I posted at the time:

I tend to agree with Cosmic Geoff here, that is quite expensive. Used gear goes for around 60%of the new cost so I would be trying to get that for about £100 less than that.

Great report Doug ! I love zoom eyepieces for double splitting I have my 130mm refractor out cooling just now so I will visit Bootes if it stays clear.

Despite all the useful information, formulae etc, etc, I've found that there is no substitute for trying things for yourself to see what works best for you under your skies. Thank goodness for the used astro equipment market !