John

What scope are we discussing ?

It's said that you should be able to slide a piece of thin card between the clips and the primary mirror surface. Not to be actually tried of course but it illustrates that the clips really don't need to be tight at all.

I used to have the 1984 Skysensor - now that was a "brick" !

I've fitted a set of dual axis (non goto) Skywatcher EQ5 drives onto my Vixen GP DX mount - they fitted straight on without modification.

I would expect that the Skywatcher EQ5 GOTO system would fit onto the Vixen GP to replace the Vixen drives that you have fitted. The Vixen ones have a "tip negative" power connector I think which is the opposite to the Skywatcher system. The Vixen motors use a 8 pin DIN type connector.

I believe that the Meade LXD55 motors and handset (which are GOTO) will fit and work with the Vixen GP mounts.

There maybe other options that I'm not aware of.

Nice follow up info Chris.

I was a little dissapointed that the ED150 that I used had so little inwards focuser movement left when at focus with a 2 inch diagonal fitted.

Good to know that most things will still come to focus with the Baader click lock fitted.

Wow, just wow Matt !

I get my flu jab later this week.

Meanwhile, the postman delivered another star atlas today - The Atlas of the Night Sky by Storm Dunlop. Illustrated by Will Tiron and Antonin Rukl. £7 pre-owned but mint and delivered.

4 hours ago, GavStar said:

Whenever I read this thread, I smile. ? The OP (long gone now) was asking about the eyepiece cases not the eyepieces themselves. Whereas the focus  generally now (including past posts from me I would add!) is on the contents not the case... ?

(accepting that the last few posts are actually in respect of the cases...)

What a dull thread (and possibly much shorter !) it would have been if the OP's post had been taken literally !

My cases have stayed looking the same from the outside for the past 5 years or more. The contents have changed a little bit though

I find it easier to grasp larger eyepieces from the sides rather than from the top. It's a bigger chunk to get gloved fingers around, where the rubber grips tend to be, much less chance of touching a lens accidently and no chance of the dust cap getting in the way of a clean, safe, pickup. Also the focal lengths tend to be on the side or shoulders of the eyepieces.

I can see that upright storage of smaller eyepieces such as my orthos could make sense though.

12 minutes ago, Floater said:

And the pictures of your collection are testament to the efficacy of your method, John. ?

Thanks Gordon.

The exceptions are the poor orthos which just rattle around in an old cigar box !

I'll have to find some better storage for those ......

With the cubed foam and my method, if you change eyepieces, you can pull the cubes back up to a flat surface and then re-depress them to fit the new eyepiece size and shape.

I use a method which involves pressing the eyepieces into the cubed foam rather than removing foam chunks. I used to change my eyepieces a lot so this approach enabled me to change the layout without needing the replace the foam inners. I'd have gone through a lot of foam if it was not for this approach !

27 minutes ago, Pig said:

I am not sure how you cope with such a humble arsenal John !!! ?

I keep saying to myself that I'm going to cut down on a few of the less used ones but then I try them and like them all over again. Hopeless - I'm just not ruthless enough when it comes to eyepieces

I seem to be quite settled with this selection now:

23 minutes ago, jinchuriki said:

So if you insert the laser in the focus tube and spin it, how vast the gap should be? Do you mind filming a really short video showing that when you're free?

I don't have the facility to film it I'm afraid. You turn the laser collimator slowly around 360 degrees, stopping every 90 degrees and marking the position of the laser dot on a piece of paper taped up around 30 feet from the laser unit. The V-block and laser unit must stay completely still in one place of course during this rotation. That shows you how far out the unit currently is. Then you pick a grub screw, hold the laser collimator in place in the V block (and the V-block exactly where it was as well) and make an adjustment to the screw noting which way the laser dot moves - hopefully towards a spot at or near the centre of your 4 90 degree marks. The repeat the rotation, mark accordingly and adjust again as necessary. It is a bit trial and error I'm afraid.

13 minutes ago, jinchuriki said:

Thanks, one important question, the laser doesn't need to be "10 feet away" to do it right? I'm not failing to do it because of the distance I'm trying I assume?..

It needs to be at least that I feel. The further the laser dot is projected, the easier it is to see where it varies as you rotate the laser around it's axis and the more accurate the collimation is, when you achieve it. I try and get around 30 feet and when adjusting, try and get the laser dot to stay within a 10mm circle, or better if possible.

I use the "V-block" method as described here (my laser collimator is the same design as shown here):

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/llcc/llcc.html

The laser unit is held in the machined housing with a rubber "O" ring type thing at one end and three grub screws that go through the housing press against the laser unit at the other end of it. On some models you need to remove a label to reveal the grub screws I believe. You might need to loosen one grub screw a little to allow adjustment to another. You need to remove the screw on battery cover section and spring from the end of the collimator to allow the last unit inside to be free to move as well.

It is a fiddly operation I agree and it can be more "miss than hit" at times.

Just as an anecdote, when I got my ED120 I also had, from the same source, an Intes 150 F/5.9 mak-newtonian which has a very high reputation. I compared the two scopes at some length on a wide variety of objects. The mak-newt did better on the deep sky because of it's additional aperture but on the planets, the moon and double stars, I could see virtually no differences between the two scopes. I ended up keeping the ED120 because it was lighter and easier to mount than the mak-newt and it cooled down more quickly.

I've done quite a bit of research into the ED120's development. I've read that Vixen optical engineers were involved in it's development. Synta delayed the introduction of the ED120 to ensure that they got the design "right" and up to, or beyond, the standard that the well recieved ED80 and ED100 had set. I've also read that the figure on some of the objective lens surfaces is aspheric which is a very hard figure to achieve and requires a degree of hand finishing. Some ED120 objectives have been independantly tested by Herr Rohr, the German optical expert and have been found to have very high optical quality for mass produced lenses.

At the end of the day though, it's the real life performance that counts and the ED120 seems to excell at that

I used my ED120 a few times on an AZ-4 mount with a 2" steel tubed tripod but I didn't find it satisfactory once the magnification got much over 100x. And the ED120 will support far more than that of course.

It might be OK as a temporary measure but I don't feel that it will enable you to experience all that the ED120 is capable of. The Skytee II or Ercole on the other hand, are rock solid with the ED120 even at 300x.

YMMV though

I'm getting fonder and fonder of my TV Ranger. I've used it for white light (as per your setup) and it's done very nicely. At night it seems to do more than I've any right to expect from such a small, lightwweight scope. It's the 1st sub-100mm scope that I've felt that I actually want to hang onto. Plus I've got Al's signature on the manual !

6 hours ago, deejay said:

.... How can they be the same model. The difference is literally chalk and cheese

 

I think Prinz were a brand name used by Dixons, the highstreet photo and electronics retailer. Dixons would source their stock from different manufacturers during the lifetime of the model. The one you have more recently acquired is an older one (1960's perhaps ?) wheras the one you already have is a later one, possibly from the 1970's or 1980's. Dixons sought the lowest manufacturing cost to maximise profitability and, over time, unfortunately the quality suffered. Dixons ceased trading in 2014 after 77 years of business.

It will be interesting to see how the optical performance of these two scope compares. The result might not mirror the apparent external quality of manufacture ?

As this thread is about Chris's ED150, it's best to use another thread, or start a new one, to discuss other scope options for you

27 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

Thank you and interesting. ?

It would be visual, initially. I did look at the option of a Skytee II and the Uni28, ( seeing it mentioned by you I think...) Telescope House sell it with a metal tripod too. FLO claim a load of 10 KG, TH one of 15KG, I presume slightly different mounts? Even though they look very similar from the pics. 

Considering the light pollution at home, I need portability though I think.  If you consider the ED150 to be not really worth considering as portable, what would consider a good scope for portability?  Sorry if it is a stupid question, but I just do not know enough, but do know Dobs are not as good as some say, more " moveable ". ?

FLO are applying practical experience and feedback from this forum to their figure. They are the same mount.

One of the most portable scopes with reasonable light grasp and resolution would be an 8 inch schmidt-cassegrain I think. They have some other compromises but, for the aperture, they are very compact and relatively easy to mount up as well. 

1 hour ago, Greymouser said:

Thank you for your reply.

Can I ask bot you and John about what you would advise as the minimum mount for this telescope? FLO are selling it with an EQ6-R, which I suspect will not be remotely portable? ?

Is that for imaging or visual ?

I don't image but I found the Giro Ercole and Skytee II alt-azimuth mounts held the ED150 well enough for visual use. I was also using a very good hardwood tripod (Berlebach Uni 28).

For imaging something equatorial and a lot more robust would be needed.

A 6 inch refractor is never going to be a readily portable scope in my view. "Moveable" might be a more realistic prospect !

4 minutes ago, Owmuchonomy said:

There are no gas giant  planetary chances for years. Next tempter for Mars is in 2020. I can try Venus and the Ice Giants though in the next few weeks. Lunar I think will be spectacular and I will try that at the next opportunity.

Neptune and Uranus are around. You should be able to get Triton at Neptune with the ED150 and maybe even a couple of Uranian moons.

Lunar views will be superb I'm sure