johninderby

Not noticed the difference myself and wonder if it’s more about perception than reality. 🤔

Perhaps some just don’t notice the light polution as much in an ultrawide eyepiece or might it depend on the amount of local light polution.? 

Can be  difficult to properly evaluate a new scope if the weather doesn’t co-operate. Hopefully with a few outings you will get a better feel for it.

The Celestron SCt XLT coatings are about 95% reflectivity so very similar although the TS has quartz mirrors so will be more stable during cooling which means you should find you don’t have to wait for tt to fully cool down to get good views.

According to Harrisons and a customer review an EQ5 does fit.

Wood is just so much better than steel at absorbing vibration. 

Did a bit of checking and the tripod is now known as the AVX tripod but showing as out of stock.

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/celestron-avx-steel-telescope-tripod-8000701.html

Best to check with them as they don’t have everything in stock that is shown on their website. That’s why they advise checking first.

The EQ6 tripod with 2” legs will help a lot. You would need the Geoptik EQ5 adapter though. The Celestron CG5 tripod has 2” legs but hard to find nowadays. 

I was wondering how the quality control of the 6” would stack up to the 8”.

After checking on the TS website I do notice that the focuser is not the same as the 8” which is rather good but is a more basic focuser. Also note the mirror is quoted as 96% refectivity not the 99% of the 8”.  Still I would expect it to perform quite well and it is keenly priced. Have you checked the collimation yet? Hopefully you will get some better seeing soon. 

Recently had the 8” out and water was running off the OTA and both the eyepiece and finder were dewing up but not the secondary. Hmmmm.

Here is a photo taken down the tube and you can see what the mirror of the 8” looks like.

4 minutes ago, oymd said:

ouch...yes, that's a bit too much glue...

You reckon I can give RVO a call and complain about the focuser? Mine is horribly stiff and clunky? I was even considering putting a drop or 2 of lubricating OIL on the gears?

 

 

Have you looked at the focuser adjustment guide I linked to in my earlier post?

Part of the problem is there is no standardisation on the postion of the compression rings. If all compression rings were a certain distance down from the top then then they could avoid a lot of the problems with undercuts.  

Here’s a suggestion for Televue. Offer an optional barrel without any undercut. Of cpurse knowing Televue it would be a £99.99 option. 😁  

With compression rings like anything else good quaity ones such as Baader do.work the best. Number of thumbscews and position of the band and thickness of the band do matter. Also more important that the ring on a focuser holds well than that on the diagonal which is usually just holding an eyepiece. 

Hate the old fashioned plain screw method. Even if there are three screws they all need to be tightened equaly to hold an eyepiece squarely. 

Oh dear looks like DaveL59 has been changing his oil in his driveway again. 

And yet another SGL thread goes wildly off course. 🤣🤣🤣

I was more posh. Had a proper oil drain container made for the purpose. I know it’s somewhere in the garage. 🤔

 Vegemite is the equivelent of Marmite in the land down under.

Still I suppose it’s one use for the sludge scraped out of old engine oil pans, or at least that’s what it smells like. 🤮

23 minutes ago, JamesF said:

No, I think that's Marmite

James

Or Vegemite.  😁

I think undercuts may have had a purpose in the days before compression rings when screws were used to lock the eyepiece in place but now are just an anoying anachronism. 🙁

This photo will help explain.

It seems that Skywatcher has just stopped putting the Shott Inside label on the outside of the tube although they are still saying in the specs that the Shott  glass is used for the crown element. You're not the first to report a small bit of excess glue on the latest scopes. 

Amazon is using the updated photo.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skywatcher-Evostar-80ED-DS-PRO-Apochromatic-Refractor/dp/B00CYHSNME

The Crayford is a low end one and the quality of it does vary a lot. Some are OK but others a bit rough although adjusting them can help. The diagonal is a dielectric one although not a high quality one although will still work fine.

https://teleskop-austria.at/information/pdf/Flex250_Skywatcher_Crayfor-Auszug_justieren.pdf

19 hours ago, Greymouser said:

 

It is of course, the six inch classical cass, which has a very good price at the moment. I cannot wait to try it out, perhaps on the above new mount. 
Not sure what to make of it yet, but things seem to be a little loose and it may need a little fettling, so I will have to pick the brains of the apparent resident expert on these here Classics... ( I wonder whom I could mean? )

 

Look forward to seeing how you get on with the 6” Cass. Hope it’s a nice as the 8”. 👍🏻

Opticstar does indeed look after their customers. I sold a scope I had bought a year earlier from Opticstar and the red dot finder that  came with it, but that I had never used, was found to be faulty by the person I had sold the scope to. Gave them the purchase details and they contacted Opticstar who sent them a new finder the next day. Now that is customer service. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

There are great retailers like FLO and Opticstar amoung others so you shouldn’t put up with second class service. 

From the photos it looks like a used returned item that has been put back into stock instead of put into the returned pile. 

I have the TS 7.2 - 21.5 and it is an excellent zoom eyepiece and performs well in any scope I’ve used it in. 

Avoid the 7 - 21 zoom eyepieces as they are a cheaper and inferior design.

This is a Skymax 180 mak not. a Meade.  Simply won’t fit period.

The problem with trying to use the Cat Cooler with a Mak is the baffle diameter. It has to be large enough to allow airflow back down the baffle tube and out the back.