soojooko

Maybe try having RA in home position and do a guiding test on a random bit of sky? Looking at your image, that's a lot of unbalanced weight on the left side of the tripod. Comparing the error in this position to RA home position might give you some insights as to whether balancing is affecting your RMS.

Cheers. I really cant get used to seeing such a lump of a scope on a tiny mount like that! Regards your RA error - what was the RA angle when you tested? Closer to home position, or a side heavy 90 degrees like in your image?

Hey Elp. Thanks for sharing your findings with the HEM15. Im also a bit surprised by the RA error. I would love to see a picture of your rig - if at all possible? No worries if not.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread again! @Skyline The claimed 2.5kg OTA weight seems really high. I can't help but think this is not correct. Have you weighed the telescope at all, and if so what did you find?

I'm going to be in the market for a 60-62mm refractor in a few weeks - to mount on my Star Adventurer. These three have caught my eye: RVO Horizon 60ED Altair 60 EDF Skywatcher Evolux 62ED Both the RVO and Altair seem literally identical specs wise. Both are hand picked with claims of 0.95 Strehl or higher. Both have a dedicated flattener for around £100 extra. Right now - I cant see the reason to spend an extra £100 on the Altair. All I seem to get for the extra money is the handle bar + the Altair name which may be a better investment if I sell down the line. As far as the Evolux goes - I can't find much info about the glass it uses. And the claimed tube weight of 2.5kg is too much for the Star Adventurer. Although I doubt the OTA weighs this much - I cant see any evidence to back this up. Basically, theres too many unknowns so I'm drawn towards the RVO or ALtair. So, anybody with experience with any of these telescopes? Any differences between the RVO and Altiar I'm unaware of? And if anybody owns the Evolux 62ED, can you confirm the OTA weight? Thanks for reading.

That's some great info there. Thank you so much. I never really considered what you are saying: cropping my image from 5000px wide to 1000px gives me the same FOV as using a 5x barlow - except without slowing down the scope. I think I can live with sacrificing resolution to get brighter subs.

To be honest, ive no real interest in planets. Im a DSO type person. However, im finding myself wanting to ( attempt to ) image some of the smaller DSO, such as the whirlpool or sunflower galaxies. I don't really have the money to invest in a new rig. I'm currently using a Star Adventurer, so I can only use a small refractor. But I understand that making my scope really slow wont help me as I'll need to take absurdly long subs. Maybe its just not possible without moving to a bigger mount and telescope?

This has been suggested a few times but I didnt understand. Its only just clicked what you guys are saying! Yes - it is quite simple. And yes - I had a massive Doh! moment. I appreciate that 5x might be a bit extreme. I wanted to get an idea of the extreme ends of magnification. Would you say that it is similarly impractical to use a high-ish powered eyepiece ( 8mm ) and do eyepiece projection?

I already have one of those adapters. Again, I was talking about having an M42 thread at the eyecup end of the barlow, not the barrel end. For example, see here: You can see the M24 thread at the eyecup end. I was just wondering why there are no 5x barlows with this thread. I don't have the gear yet. Just figuring things out. I already have an imaging setup, with a DSLR and some lens. Im considering a small refractor: 50-60mm aperture with a focal length of around 250-350. I was checking out the different FOV when using barlows and was curious if a 5x could work. But without the M42 thread, its not possible as far as I can see.

Thanks for the reply. I was talking about having an M42 thread at the eyecup end of the barlow. Basically, so it can sit between a refractor and a DSLR.

Hi. I have a couple of 2x barlows that come with a M42 thread for direct connection to my DSLR via T-ring. They both work well enough when connected like this. I've noticed there are several cheap 5x barlows what also have the M42 thread - but none of the higher quality 5x barlows come threaded. Is there a reason for this as far as anybody knows? If not - are there any good 5x barlows that come with a M42 thread? Thanks

Hi. I got hold of a Star Adventurer. I plan to use it with a DSLR and Lens/small refractor. I don't see myself going about 2kg payload. I was on the verge of grabbing the Skywatcher Star Adventurer tripod - which somebody is selling for £40. But I'm not sure whether I should spend a little more money and get a used Manfrotto 055XPROB for around £70. Anybody have any thoughts to share about this? Thanks

Hi all. I've been in 'beginner' status for a good 9 months now, using a basic 130mm F/5 DOB. I've well and truly caught the bug and am ready to upgrade. I've had a lot of joy with the DOB and used it both for visual as well as taking pictures using my smartphone. I know at some point in the future I'll likely invest in a DSLR, but for the foreseeable future I think I'll be happy upgrading to a 150mm Newt on an EQ mount with sidereal tracking. I plan to continue using the scope for visual as well as some smartphone fun. But whatever I choose, I would like it to be reasonably competent at imaging via a smartphone - and hopefully with a DSLR later on. Not looking to go pro. Just scratch my cosmic photo itch. I was about to bite the bullet on a Skywatcher explorer 150p-ds. But then spotted the TS-Photon 6" F/5 : https://www.altairastro.com/ts-photon-6-f5-newtonian-telescope-6358-p.asp The TS sounds like it has a higher quality primary mirror and a good focuser - as well as being geared towards imaging. However, I noticed the secondary mirror is 63mm! This seems absurdly large for a 150mm scope. My concern is that this telescope is very much geared towards imaging and will be very poor when used visually, particularly on planetary viewing. Is this a valid concern? Even though I lean towards getting an imaging scope, I don't want to totally sacrifice the visual side of things. I would be happy with a telescope that's stronger when used to image, but is not terrible for visual observing. Would I be better off with the SW 150P-DS which has a more reasonably sized 52mm secondary? ( still quite large, but this is understandable as the P-DS is an imaging scope ) Thanks for reading.

Thanks. Even though your images are taken using an f/6 - I'm still rather impressed with the sharpness of the GSO to the edge of the view. I can get one new for £35 ( Taiwan sourced ). I'm going to give this some thought.

@Louis D whoa - that's really useful. Thank you. The big surprise for me is the GSO super plossl. That wasn't even on my radar, but looking at your images, its sharpness across the field is really impressive. So much so that I find it hard to believe! Can such a cheap 32mm EP really be that good on fast scopes?

Haha! That was exactly the question behind the question! I dont think I would be comfortable removing the eyecup over and over again. If I could just grip the eyecup, that would be my preference. @maddogharper Thanks for the suggestions. But right now I'm only interested in a low mag wide view EP. There's one thing I would really like to understand. What are the practical differences between a 25mm 60° and a 30mm 50° eyepieces? When using https://astronomy.tools/, both seem to have exactly the same viewable area. But in use, I expect there to be some differences. Can anybody elaborate?

Thanks again for the info. I see you called the eyecup 'soft rubber'. I keep seeing reports online of people calling the eyecup hard plastic. Has there been different versions over the years?

Thank you. That's really helpful. To be 100% clear, is that 45mm at the low edge of the eyecup? Basically, the border where the eyecup and the silver body meet?

Thanks for the offer. No, I don't have the Celestron, although I do have access to one. Mine is considerably cheaper, but it works very well. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07QLB16Y9 Don't let the price fool you - it really does work. I've tried a few different adapters in the past, and this cheap model is the best I've found. I'm leaning slightly towards the BST, for this reason alone; being able to remove the eyecup so I can easily attach the adapter. It sounds like they are both good EPs. I would likely go with the NPL if I knew it would fit - but its so close that it is risky. The slokey website says 45mm max and the NPL looks like its around 46-47mm.

Ok - that sounds promising. It might just fit. There is around 8mm depth in the adapter eyepiece holder - but it grips pretty tight. It should be able to grab hold of the tapered rubber eyecup. Indeed. But in the case of the meade/GSO/celestron etc, they all look very similar. Identical aside from color. And they all seem to have that super plossl 4 element design. Whereas other 32/30mm like the TV or the NPL have very different looking designs, which lead me to believe they are different optically. I posted the exact same question on the CN forum - but the few responses I've had over there talk up the BST. And yet here, there seems to be more love for the NPL. I cant say it's helping my decision making here!😖

Thats 2 for the NPL! Thanks for you input. As far as the Meade goes, is it any different to the Skywatcher/Celestron/GSO 32mm plossls. They all look much the same - with the 'super plossl' 4 element design. I was warned that these designs are the ones that dont work well with fast scopes. Is the Meade any different? Hmm... 48mm is cutting it really tight. I just measured my adapter again and its just under 50mm max. I may have difficulty squeezing it in. Shame - this may be a deal breaker. The particular phone adapter I use is really good. Works far better than all the others I've tried, so its kind of important that whatever EP I go for fits.

Thanks for the insight. Nice to hear the NPL doesn't suffer from blackouts like most other 32mm plossls. To be honest, Ive not heard a bad word about the NPL. It seems very well regarded. One question: can the eyecup be removed? I would like to be able to attach my smartphone adapter to whichever EP I go for. I know it can be removed on the BST, but the NPL doesn't look like its possible. Assuming it cant be done, can you give me an idea of the eyecup diameter please? I can fit up to ~50mm in the adapter, so it might work even with the eyecup on.

Hi all I have a Heritage 130p ( F/5 ) and wanted to add a low power eyepiece. I wanted something to give be a reasonable bump in quality and viewable area over the 25mm ( 52° ) that comes with the scope. I'm looking at these right now: BST Starguider 25mm / 60° Vixen NPL 30mm / 50° Both offer similar viewable area and are at the max end of my budget. ( £50 ) I've spoken to somebody I know who owns the NPL, and was told its a very good EP, but the person who told me this uses an F/8 scope. I was told it might not be quite so good with a fast telescope like an F/5 and that a wide view 25mm might be better. Hence the BST 25mm. Is this sound advice? Can anybody offer some insight into the above two EPs in an F/5 telescope? Are there other eyepieces I should be considering? I almost bit the bullet on a Skywatcher 32mm plossl, which is a bit cheaper than the above two, but then heard about issues with fast telescopes so decided to hold back for now. Thanks

Hello all! I just purchased a 130p and used it a couple of times. Overall, I'm having a lot of fun so far. I managed to collimate the scope using a cap which seemed to work well. I then borrowed a laser collimator from a friend to compare. I was curious to see if my cap collimation matched. The laser collimator is collimated. I tested this by securing it and pointing it at a wall around 10 feet away. I turned the laser slowly and it was pretty much spot on. It may have made a tiny circle - it was hard to tell. If it did, the circle was no more than 2-3 mm. At 10 feet away, I considered this good enough. Right, so I chucked the laser collimator into the scope, and it was pretty close to being collimated already - which was pleasing initially. However, when I turned the laser in the focuser, it made a circle - easily over 10mm in diameter. I figured it was because of the slack, so I tightened the 2 screws to secure the laser in place, with just enough slack to turn it. Still it drew a circle. I then thought maybe the issue is the looseness of the focuser thread. Ive read several times people use teflon tape to tighten this up - so I did the same. After a few layers there was no more wobble. This time, I secured the laser firmly in place with the 2 screws, and instead turned the focuser in/out of focus to spin the laser. Same result again - the dot went round in a circle. At this point, I thought I should check the laser again. Took it out of the scope. Put it in my stand ( its a heavy stand with two metal V shapes to hold the laser ). Again pointed it to a wall 10 feet away. It was pretty much perfect. barely any movement at all when I turned it. So, if the laser is collimated - but the dot doesn't hold its position in the scope when the laser is rotated - it looks like its a problem with how the focuser is engineered on the 130p. Can anybody offer any insight? Has anybody managed to successfully use a laser collimator on this particular scope?