Flame Nebula

Thanks Peter. 👍

I'm planning on doing AP, but I'm not looking for perfection either. 🤣 What is the difference between EAA and AP?

I can add, that I feel like my 80ed is on a par or close to my 127mm mak. Both of them start to lose sharpness around 140x, which shows how good the 80 ed performs on an inch for inch basis. Maybe I need to check the collimation on the mak. But assuming OK, if my 80ed can hold its own against it, the 120ed would clearly beat it.

Hi Elp, Based on the odd comment here and there, the 127mm mak is no match for the 120ED. If anyone has done a side by side on these I'd be interested.

Hi, I think I can get more focal length with a 2x Barlow, giving 1900 mm (if a 0.95x CC present) or even 3x giving 2850mm. As long as quality of image does not degrade much with the extra glass. I've been put off getting an sct for visual use. Too many stories of mushy views in this country. I might consider a used C9.25 or C11 in the future for improving my planetary AP.

Hi Again, title says it all. I'm interested in experiences where anyone has compared the same object at same time in a 8" (preferably F5) and a skywatcher 120ED I'm planning to get the 200pds (for visual and AP) and have been considering a used 120ed, to fill in the gap between a 127mm mak and 80ed, both of which it should beat by a wide margin, from what I've read. But, I'm not going to do this, if my 200pds shows everything, and more. Additional info: the contest here, is not on dso, which I can't see the 120 beat 200mm, but on specifically on planets and double stars. But feel free to add others. 🙂 Thanks Mark

Very comprehensive reply Phil👍. Thanks for this, it's very useful. How do you rate Sharpcap against NINA, for planetary capture? From other places I've come to think NINA = DSO capture, Sharpcap = planets. Your advice to download them all and try them, is a good idea, and others have said this too. I was interested that GIMP can do what photoshop can, but for free. 🙂 Thanks Mark

Hi, The title says it all. 🤔 I've seen Mr Spock's tempting review comparing this favourably with a scope beginning with 'T', so I will assume it would thrash my SW evostar 80ed. But, is it the best value or is there even better value out there? And by better value, I mean same price with better optics or lower price with at least same optics. Thanks Mark

Thanks Ivor So, I guess the burning question is, which of the modifications you made do you think gives the biggest return on effort, with respect to visual and imaging? Mark

Hi Just wondering if any of owners of this scope have modified it since purchasing, to improve imaging and/or visual observation? Example, I've heard replacing the spider can give razor sharp spikes and flocking can make a big difference, with imaging, to avoid light reflections. Did you replace the part that grips the dslr? Finally, did you need to get an extension tube to do visual observation? Thanks Mark

Thanks Ian. I think the 8" resolves to 0.6"? Marj

Thanks Ian, I'm interested in double stars, where I'm hoping the 8" will be able to resolve sub 1" pairs, with up to 400x seeing permitting.

Thanks Stu.

I bet that's a nice planetary scope!

OK, I was going to congratulate you on a stunning shot. 🙂

Yes, thinking about it, if a 8" can achieve about 0.7" in perfect conditions, and the human eye can resolve 1', then I would think approx 100x would be minimum magnification needed. But, in reality, to make it easier for the eye to detect, pushing to 2-3', would need 200-300x for a 200mm scope, which is where most people push an 8", if they do need to push. Mark

Ah yes, Buzz was certainly right. Did you take that photo John?

Alternatively, a vacuum hose, placed at bottom of tube, suck out the air and allow displacement from air outside. 🤔 Just need to avoid scratching the mirror. I think I'll avoid this though. Might wake the neighbours (not because it's a really stupid idea. 😜)

Yes, I'm quite interested in the maths, but I would tend to agree with you. I'm curious about how theory and practice compare to some extent. As a matter of interest, what did the moon look like at x795!? Lunar orbit?

Based on vlaiv's calculation, and assuming linear, you'd need a max of 350/200*290, to see all the details resolved in your scope. That's about mag 507x, or 42x per inch, certainly possible I suspect. Have you ever pushed it out that far, out of curiosity? Mark

Hi John, Yes, you're right. I actually have the Barlow. I should have said use the 2.25, but I'd still fall a bit short of 290 mag, especially if I have a 0.95xcoma corrector in place. Having said that, might be able to avoid the corrector for planets. I'm wondering if something like the explore scientific 52° 3mm might be better than barlowing a 6mm. Mark

I wonder if baader do a short zoom. Their 8-24mm is very good. I guess I could use the 2x Barlow to get 4mm. But, to get to the 290 mark, I'd need more.

Thanks Dweller, I was thinking of something even shorter. Say 3-4mm, but thanks for letting me know 👍

Can you imagine the neighbours seeing you with your head stuck down the end of your Dob? 🤣 Although you might be left with a cross on your head from the spider.

Hi, Reason I ask, is I have a 6mm altair wave LER planetary eyepiece, and plan to use a gso x2 Barlow to get 3mm or 4.5mm(if you screw the endpiece of Barlow into end of eyepiece) giving roughly 330x and 200x respectively, in 8" F5 ( when I get it). The Barlow retains the eye relief. But, I'm wondering if I should get a high quality short focal length eyepiece, with good eye relief, instead?