John

I do sometimes get pangs of uncertainty when I decide that something has to go but, for me, seeing something not being used much or at all is much worse. I do try and move on redundant gear and take solice in the thought that the new owner will put it to use, which is what it was created for.

I agree with Mark (above). 30mm will be a much more effective focal length and the Explore Scientific 30mm 82 degree eyepiece that Mark links to is an excellent choice for your 10 inch F/4.7 dobsonian. A 20mm / 100 degree eyepiece is even better if you observe with some light pollution around.

The AZ-4 has a similar capacity but no slow motion controls. Not sure if the AZ-5 (which does have slo mos) has quite the capacity of the Vixen Porta ? My Vixen ED102SS F/6.5 rides very happily on an AZ-4 with a 1.5 or 1.75 inch steel tripod.

Sorry to hear that Geoff but at least Cygnus gets well up into the sky here in the UK so we see the Veil well. You have done much better with the planets where you are though.

I also started to find that I was concentrating so much on finding subtle differences between products that I was not enjoying observing as much. That was what prompted me to change tack somewhat.

Good point Raph I use a Rigel Quikfinder with my 12 inch dobsonian alongside the 9x50 optical finder. Its a great zero magnification finder but it wont find things itself !

Thats interesting Mike I've read a report somewhere where the opposite result occured from a similar comparison. I'm sure you and your friend saw what you saw and that the other folks saw what they saw as well. I've given up swapping around eyepieces now. I have what I have and I'll try and get best out of them as the conditions allow. I think I've come to the conclusion that seeing conditions are a larger determining factor than the eyepiece. Observing experience helps a lot as well.

Hello and welcome to the forum. What aperture is the main mirror on your seben scope ?

It is worth bearing in mind that the original review by Alan that kicked off this thread was posted 7 years ago. I'm sure there are many examples around of scopes and other equipment that were "king of the hill" 7 years ago that have now had their capability exceeded by more recent products.

I believe Astro Physics have used FCD100 in their latest incarnation of the Stowaway triplet ?

There is extensive data here on eyepiece specifications compiled and updated each year by Don Pensack in the USA. Don knows a lot about eyepieces !: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/657524-2019-eyepiece-buyers-guide/?p=9288710

I call this one "Cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey with Port and Starboard lights left on by mistake"

The issue with FPL-53 at one stage seemed to be its continuing availability - there were rumours that Ohara were going to reduce or phase out it's production. But since then I've seen quite a few new scopes coming into the market which specify at least one and sometimes more FPL-53 elements and some in quite large sizes so it seems that, for now, the future supply of FPL-53 is secure. Its price though will be of concern to the manufacturer of lower priced ED refractors - As of 2017, FPL53 glass cost around 20% more than FPL-55 and nearly 100% more than FPL-51.

I have a couple of less expensive UHC filters as well as the Lumicon O-III - a Meade 4000 Nebular (spelt like that !) in 1.25 inches and the Explore Scientific UHC in 2 inches. Both do make a difference and have quite generous band pass widths so the effect is much more subtle than the O-III. Most of the time though I'm wanting the filter to give a good "kick" to the contrast of the nebulosity and the O-III is by far the best for that. This illustration of the impact of a high quality O-III filter is not an exaggeration on a darkish night:

Not wanting to question Suiter of course but I have seen a noticable improvement in the star test before and after getting the tilt of the objective lens correct. Most of my refractors have been slower than F12 though. Usually F/10 or faster.

For visual use I recommend either the Lumicon, Astronomik or Tele Vue Bandmate II O-III filters. They are expensive but I've tried a lot of filters over the years (including the Baader visual O-III) and the are simply the best performers with the most significant visual impact on the nebulae.

The earliest Synta / Skywatcher branded ED doublets had blue tubes. They switched to the champagne / cream colour scheme when the ED120 was launched sometime after the 80 and 100. The specs also claimed that the objectives were hand finished but that is a loose term that could mean a lot of things ! Back then the rivals didn't seem to specify glass types used unless it was fluorite so its not easy to tell what was used in the few non-fluorite ED doublets around back then. Back to today and the challenge that Skywatcher face is: - Forums extensively discuss the minute details of specification and rumours (correct or incorrect) travel fast. I believe this does influence customer demand. - There are many competing brands who do specify the glass types used. - We are used to increased levels of information regarding products and regard a lack of such detail as suspicious rather than meritorious.

I agree - Messier 31. I think you have also got the fainter Messier 33 as well - I've marked it in this copy of your image:

The Meade Polaris is basically the same scope as the Skywatcher 130p but with a single axis motor drive included. Made by the same manufacturer (Synta) I reckon. I agree with the wisdom of buying from a reputable astro dealer such as First Light Optics.

The AZ100 is a lot heavier and more solid than a Skytee II, is better engineered and has a higher capacity. It's a lot more expensive as well of course. @Stu knows the AZEQ6 well and can comment on how that compares with the AZ100 I'm sure. Personally I would want to hold onto a lighter AZ mount as well though so I would have held onto either the Skytee II or the Ercole. Not sure which would have got the vote but its academic because I'm not purchasing an AZ100 !.

Have you checked that your focuser optical axis is accurately aligned with the optical axis of the objects lens ? Thats the first check to make. I use an accurately collimated laser collimator to do this check. Put it in the focuser without a diagonal in place and see where the laser beam exits the objective lens. If its right in the centre, all is OK. If it is off to one side or other, the focuser alignment needs adjusting. When you are confident that the focuser and objective optical axis are aligned, then you can use the cheshire to check objective tilt.

Its funny how threads and posts get truncated by the "Recently Posted" preview pane. Peters last post comes over as this. Poor Helen ! Helen Sharman. By Peter Drew · Posted 8 minutes ago You can always smear some Marmite on them if they're too sweet for you Olly. 😃

Your additional tools suggestions are good ones

Hi Popeye, This is a good web article on star hopping which includes advice on method, tools and some targets including star maps: https://britastro.org/node/12846 My favourite star hopping tools are: - The Sky and Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas - A red torch to read the above - A zero magnification finder such as a Telrad or Rigel Quickfinder Here is a link to a more in depth and challenging set of hops to aid a messier marathon by Rob Hawley: https://www.robhawley.net/mm/SHG-MM-text-v6a.pdf

I don't know exactly what the figure is but the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow increases the eye relief by around 30% I believe. All the 1.25 inch Hyperions except for the 24mm have optical elements within their 1.25 inch barrel sections as I recall. I'm not sure about the Explore Scientific 68 degree range. If you ask a specific question on this in the eyepiece forum I guess those who own them will give you the information you need.