RobertI

Binoviewers. 😉

I am also going to 'investigate' some bigger ticket items, for future reference of course: See a 12" Dob in the flesh and see how big they actually are Fondle an AZ75 Have a play with an iOptron Pro - possible future mount for EAA Investigate alternative binoviewers like MaxBrights and the linear mirror BVs And my accessory purchases might extend to some Baader Wonder fluid. And a new dew controller. And possibly a new power pack. Damn.

There won't be any left - I'm going Friday! 😆 Seriously I am a bit financially challenged at the moment, so it's probably going to be some accessories.

I think this map also shows the area (the domes are on the bottom right of map 44) but no information unfortunately: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/LAC/lac44/150dpi.jpg

Now booked in for Friday, I have a long list of things to investigate and possible things to buy (mostly accessories) as I don’t want to be too aimless. Booked in for Millisa Gillone’s talk on galaxy clusters. 👍

Lovely report, the moon can be stunning, I’ve also promised myself more lunar time.

Lovely report and a great start to your EAA journey. Looking forward to following your posts. 🙂 I had a similar journey I think, finding imaging a bit too time consuming and having too much light pollution for effective visual of DSOs, EAA was the perfect solution. I also love the fact that you have a permanent record of your ‘observations’ and can share with others. I’ve just bought an ASI290 (my Lodestar finally konked out) and waiting for the right moment to get going with it

No problem, useful for me too. 🙂

I have nasty floaters/meshes in my left eye from a ‘vitreous detachment’ a couple of years ago - apparently very common when you get to your 50’s. My right eye probably has a normal number of floaters. Binoviewers definitely helps me, somehow my brain seems to deal with them better in stereo. As regards the OP’s question, I am probably going to commit a scientific clanger here, but could it be to do with the size of the object being viewed? So if you are viewing Jupiter with a 0.5mm exit pupil in the SCT and ZS66, Jupiter will be the same brightness in both but Jupiter will be bigger in the SCT and there will be more area of planet against which to see floaters? I look forward to hearing the flaws in my argument. 😆 I viewed Mars through two 4” fracs a year or two ago as a little comparison. One was an F10 achro and the other an F7 ED. Interestingly I noted at the time that the floaters seemed less of an issue in the F10 achro when using the same exit pupil - as both are 4” the magnification and image size would have been the same, so I can only put it down to the fact that the F10 achro produced a dimmer and yellower image which showed floaters less. But perhaps a different explanation to what you are seeing.

I didn’t know that! Educational and informative - nice repot. 🙂

I shall look forward to that. 🙂

Excellent haul, and some interesting catches.

Aaaah, so you’re “Phil from the UK”! They are very complimentary about your reports - I think they have said you should have your own podcast! 🙂

Can a fellow SGL’er come up with a methodical troubleshooting process to eliminate each component as the culprit next time it happens?

I honestly don’t know about the CA in that refractor but I have been very very happy with my 4” ED refractor for moon and planets and prefer it to the 150P Newt visually. It would also be a better bet if you were regularly transporting it in my opinion. Just need someone to comment on how annoying the CA is I guess.

Great results, especially Mars. Visually it was small, wobbly and unpleasant tonight. On Jupiter I think you have captured the white oval I described - very interesting to see in the image. You’re getting some great results with your C6.

Lovely session with the 102ED and BVs - that setup is just such a joy to use. Watched the occultation of Ganymede and picked up lots of detail on the Jupiter - particularly pleased to get a white oval in what I believe is the South Temperate belt. Would be interested to know if that is a well known white oval or just one of many? Tried different colour filters, in all honesty I couldn’t see any improvement with any of them. Also got out the RC6 to try for visual for the first time ever - pure curiosity as it’s primarily my EAA scope - the results were horrible - that huge obstruction just washes out all sharpness and contrast. Curiosity satisfied, it’s back in the box for the RC6 for now!

If you’ve seen the Veil then you’re doing really well and that bodes well for more faint fuzzies. The Veil is even better with an OIII filter. I bought a 4” refractor after years of observing with an 8” SCT, and with each passing month I am more and more impressed. It is especially good on planetary and doubles, but I am now starting to see it is a really good deep sky instrument too, probably because of the amazing contrast and light transmission. Here is an interesting article showing what can be achieved with a 4” refractor - obviously a bit bigger than your 80mm, but shows what smaller fracs can do: https://rogerivester.com/2010/05/23/my-4-inch-refractor/

I’m going to treat myself to a day off and come and enjoy the show. Some exciting looking new products to look forward to.

You could hire a 10” dob for a couple of weeks to see how you get on. I’ve been thinking of doing this myself with a 12”, here’s a possible provider who is not far away …… https://www.darkskytelescopehire.co.uk/telescopes-for-hire/250mm-skywatcher-dobsonian-reflector-telescope Personally, I think that even if you find the increase in aperture doesn’t show you enough of a difference, the move to a closed tube dobsonian with a better focuser will really improve your viewing pleasure and allow you to achieve more with those lovely Nagler eyepieces.

I think I will discover more about the differences between them over time, as I observe different kinds of objects under different conditions. I may well change my opinion. Also worth noting that the conditions were far from ideal, with a bright moon in the sky.

That’s a useful list Don, thanks, although I don’t know what some of those things are, but I will investigate. I did examine the on axis views and I couldn’t really say there was an clear difference but perhaps if I knew what I was looking for it might be more obvious to me. Field stop focus was much better in the ES but not something that would affect my enjoyment. I couldn’t really see any obvious differences in tint, but perhaps looking at moon and planets might show that some more, although I wouldn’t do planetary with these eyepieces anyway. The deeper eyecup of the Hyperion did do a better job of reducing extraneous light which gave the impression of better contrast initially but I think this was a bit of an illusion. I didn’t see any EOFB in either.

Had a very interesting hour outside testing the new eyepiece in the C8 + reducer and the 102ED. My main task was to compare it to the Hyperion. I used the double cluster, M31 and Polaris - conditions were not great, with a bright moon. I’ve never done such an in-depth eyepiece test (I usually just observe stuff!) but I found it a frustrating experience for two reasons: The results from an eyepiece seemed to vary from one moment to the next - ie: I’d test the Hyperion, then five minutes later test it again and get a slightly different result - I can only put it down to slight focus differences and perhaps position of eyepiece in the diagonal, possibly even eye positioning. Who knows? The eyepieces were so close in performance it was actually very difficult to say which was better! Each eyepiece produced slightly different aberrations/distortions in the the C8, but at similar levels across the FOV, starting with field curvature then becoming astigmatism as moving further out from the centre. The ES68 was certainly not sharp to the edges (far from it) and the Hyperion was actually not as bad as I recall. From what I could tell, the ES68 showed pincushion distortion and the Hyperion barrel distortion, with the ES68 being more noticeable, but neither were a problem for observing. As far as eye relief goes the experience was similar in both, as the eye guards seem designed to take the eye relief into account (without spectacles) and your eyebrow just touches the eye guard when viewing. In terms of object brightness and detail I couldn’t really notice any differences, perhaps things might look different under really dark skies. I did notice more of a difference in the F7 refractor, I would say the ES68 was marginally better in edge distortions, but I had to look very hard. As I noted in a previous comment, the edge of field distortions in the F7 are much less than the F6.3 scope anyway, plus I really don’t think that the F6.3 reducer is that good and would possibly be a tough challenge for any eyepiece. So in summary I would say the the ES68 is a very slightly better eyepiece in terms of edge of field distortions but only noticeable in the F7 scope. But I think the Hyperion had an advantage in that its shorter focal length would show less field curvature anyway (I believe?) , so in a more equal test the ES68 might have shown a more obvious gain. The ES is a good eyepiece and a welcome addition to the arsenal, perhaps not as aberration free as I was expecting, but I now have that wider FOV that I was after, and a good additional eyepiece for when I have the ‘twin cannons’ out!

Some more comparisons (bear in mind we are comparing a 24mm with a 21mm): ES68 is 65 grams lighter (308 v 373g) ES68 is 10mm shorter (body) ES68 has no rubber protection/grip - the Hyperion has rubber coating on the body and shoulder - actually great for grip and protection ES68 has green coating, Hyperion has purple ES68 has a shallower eyecup, appears to be in line with the shorter eye relief ES68 has a sharper field stop - not sure how important this is in real world viewing

That's true Don, should have been more specific. I'm hoping it doesn't suffer the looseness that I get with the Hyperions and my 2" diagonal.