cloudyweather

Is anyone able to summarise the differences between the EQ5 Pro and HEQ5 Pro ? Of course there's also a EQM-35 Pro. It's really difficult finding out anything from the Skywatcher product specs... and I think they have too many products...

I see the Celestron AVX has 2" tripod legs which might be overkill for me.

Thanks

Thank you so much everyone.

I've got a few extra questions.

Can the Starfield be 'switched' easily during a session between Visual and Imaging?

What mount do you/would you use for the Starfield? It would ideally need to be somewhat portable... despite living in rural Wiltshire, you wouldn't believe the bright led street lights. I don't intend to carry it on my back, just car but I do have a restricted view very dark spot in the garden. Really portable things like the AM3 raise the price somewhat. Or add in a slow mo alt-az for travelling visual.  Too many options.

Thanks

32 minutes ago, Elp said:

RVO have had the 76 and 100 on offer for months, don't know if they're in stock though.

Looks like same price as FLO (double the Starfield/Askar)... at 740mm and f/7.4 it's marginally better for visual right? Still, what a price and length 815mm.

55 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Can't help you decide, but can point out a returned starfield with a reduced price available : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/offer_starfield-102mm-f7-ed-doublet-refractor_431919.html

Thanks

"Generally good condition but a slight amount of dust in the optics from usage but not worthy of cleaning."

Ooo, I don't like dust and it's 'in' the optics not 'on'. My prime camera lenses are all spotless, never cleaned just covered and they have lots of glass.

1 hour ago, Nik271 said:

The Askar seems a very good choice for imaging. Most people note that it sacrifices a bit of sharpness for a good flat field for imaging. For visual the Starfield is probably a better choice: lighter, shorter cool down time, unless you use a binoviewer where Askar has the advantage as the tube can be shortened so it can achieve focus for widest possible field of view. Really you can't go wrong with either.

I do like a sharp image... thanks

1 hour ago, Elp said:

There's a few people on here with one or the other, don't know if anyone has both.

I've got the Starfield 102 and have used it for both visual and imaging. It's a fine scope, 100mm really is a sweet spot for practical visual use if you're going to use it often. Note, it's not a small scope, you'll need a decent tripod and mount, as it's quite long it'll have to be mounted onto a pier extension if you don't have enough clearance from the mount to the back end of the scope with all your equipment connected if your objects will be say 60 degrees plus in altitude. Something not often spoken about, the 2.5 inch focuser is very good.

As an imager though, I was looking at the Askar 103 before a chance came to get the SF used. A triplet for imaging will be better corrected with less star colour bloat/fringing. For visual a triplet will be overkill, they also take a bit longer to cool down, and are heavier than an equivalent doublet.

I believe either will be a good choice. Note you'll also have to factor in flattener/reducer costs into the total if you plan on imaging, as well as many other attributed costs.

 

Thank you for confirming 100mm as a sweet spot for visual. And the need for a decent tripod/mount with extension. I was trying to use binoculars the other night on Alcor and Mizar (painfully) so definitely need greater than 60 degrees of altitude.

It had been suggested that the AZ-GTiX would fit the bill but I'm not so sure now.  I had heard triplets would be better for imaging due to corrected colour - just didn't know if the glass quality made a difference. Good to know a triplet would be overkill for visual. Thanks

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

Hello @cloudyweather and welcome to SGL.

A 100mm refractor is a really good choice 👍

The Starfield has been around a while and there is quite a bit of feedback on them.

The Askar is relatively new and there is not as much real world information about it - apart from the imaging influencers on Youtube, but imaging and visual are two very different things.

If I had to choose now it would be the Starfield - based on the reviews - but the nights are short at the moment so I would probably wait until the Autumn when there may be more Askar reviews…

As you appreciate HQ lenses then the Fluorite doublets made by Canon Optron in the Takahashi FC100 range may be of interest - they are premium optics at a premium price though !

Hope that helps.

Thanks for confirming the 100mm choice. You are right about the nights right now - although most seem to have had constant rain clouds for months.

That Takahashi looks nice - and so light. I wonder if they ever appear in sales - black friday sort of thing.

Hi all,

First let me say that I've read as much as I can find online and I'm looking for help.

I'm fairly new at astronomy, retired and a  semi-professional photographer in the past (love HQ lenses).  Not sure about all the image processing/stacking that seems to be needed for astro but may give that a go (I have an APS-C Fuji). But I'm also looking for Visual and somewhat portable (car / easy setup).

Consider the Starfield 102 + 0.8 reducer/flattener and the Askar 103mm + 08. reducer/flattener to be the same price and both in stock.

I've read nothing but glowing reports of the Starfield everywhere. Praising the quality build, finish & optics for both Visual and Imaging.

The Askar seems to have split views. Concern about cheaper glass than perhaps more expensive triplets. I did read of possible focuser issues on one site.

Why am I asking?  The Starfield has been out of stock for a few months and I could get the Askar, but I'll wait a little longer if needed.

Has anyone actually used both telescopes?  First hand experience of both? For Visual and Imaging?

Many thanks