johninderby

It’s curious that Celestron SCTs are seen as much more desireable than Meade although the lower weight does make the Celestrons easier to mount which is part of it. The later Meades are quite good but seem to have slipped off the radar of potential buyers. Nowadays it seems like SCT = Celestron. Where did it all go wrong for Meade? 🤔

Hi Worth going to the Nexstarsite as they have loads of useful info and guides for using the Nexstar scopes. https://nexstarsite.com/ Nexstar users guide https://nexstarsite.com/NUG2.htm

And Ruud will take all this out of date gear off your hands. 😁😂🤣

Visual observers just get on with it. 😀

I like my old Telescope Express one. Fits into a 6x30 finder bracket. Not illuminated but better optics than normally found in a pole scope.

Have been giving this a bit more thought. 🤔 I think that yes the imaging side is growing quite a bit but as alluded to in some of the earlier posts it’s the overall hobby that is growing rather than the number of visual observers decreasing. Also it’s not surprising that thee are more posts re: imaging as first of all they have images to post whereas viusal observers simply don’t bother to post their observing experiences as often. Also imagers need more help than visual in getting things working so more requests for help and advise and sharing of experiences. Things may differ in the US compared to the UK and EU but I wouldn’t imagine there would be a huge difference. Conclusio: The astronomy hobby has never been healthier. 👍🏻

Worth using the Televue eyepiece calculator which will give you the fov and mag etc for various Televue eyepieces but you can find cheaper eyepieces that are about the same as the Televue ones. http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=212&plain=TRUE Focal Length: 900.0mm Aperture: 70.0mm Focal Ratio: 12.9 Include 2-inch data: False Table corrected for Paracorr: False List only DIOPTRX eyepieces: False Max recommended mag. for aperture: 165x Design Focal Length (mm) Apparent Field (°) Eye Rel. (mm) Barrel Size Mag. (x) Exit Pupil (mm) True Field (°) True Field @ 1000 yards (feet) Mag. w/2x Barlow (2x) Mag. w/2x Big Barlow or Power- mate (2x) Mag. w/2.5x Power- mate (2.5x) Mag. w/3x Barlow (3x) Mag. w/4x Power- mate (4x) Mag. w/5x Power- mate (5x) Panoptic 41 68 27 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Plössl 55 50 38 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nagler 5 31 82 19 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Panoptic 35 68 24 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ethos 21 100 15 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nagler 4 22 82 19 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Panoptic 27 68 19 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ethos 17 100 15 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Panoptic 24 68 15 1¼" 37.5 1.9 1.7 90.0 75.0 -- 93.8 112.5 -- 187.5† Plössl 32 50 22 1¼" 28.1 2.5 1.7 90.0 56.3 -- 70.3 84.4 -- 140.6 Plössl 40 43 28 1¼" 22.5 3.1 1.7 90.0 45.0 -- 56.3 67.5 -- 112.5 Nagler 4 17 82 17 2" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ethos 13 100 15 2" & 1¼" 69.2 1.0 1.4 74.3 138.5 -- 173.1† 207.7† -- 346.2† Nagler 5 16 82 10 1¼" 56.3 1.2 1.4 73.7 112.5 -- 140.6 168.8† -- 281.3† Panoptic 19 68 13 1¼" 47.4 1.5 1.4 71.0 94.7 -- 118.4 142.1 -- 236.8† Delos 17.3 72 20 1¼" 52.0 1.3 1.3 70.7 104.0 -- 130.1 156.1 -- 260.1† Plössl 25 50 17 1¼" 36.0 1.9 1.3 70.7 72.0 -- 90.0 108.0 -- 180.0† DeLite 18.2 62 20 1¼" 49.5 1.4 1.2 63.7 98.9 -- 123.6 148.4 -- 247.3† Ethos 10 100 15 2" & 1¼" 90.0 0.78 1.1 59.0 180.0† -- 225.0† 270.0† -- 450.0† Nagler 6 13 82 12 1¼" 69.2 1.0 1.1 58.7 138.5 -- 173.1† 207.7† -- 346.2† Delos 14 72 20 1¼" 64.3 1.1 1.1 57.7 128.6 -- 160.7 192.9† -- 321.4† Plössl 20 50 14 1¼" 45.0 1.6 1.1 57.0 90.0 -- 112.5 135.0 -- 225.0† DeLite 15 62 20 1¼" 60.0 1.2 1.0 53.3 120.0 -- 150.0 180.0† -- 300.0† Delos 12 72 20 1¼" 75.0 0.93 0.96 50.0 150.0 -- 187.5† 225.0† -- 375.0† Ethos 8 100 15 2" & 1¼" 112.5 0.62 0.88 46.3 225.0† -- 281.3† 337.5† -- 562.5† DeLite 13 62 20 1¼" 69.2 1.0 0.88 46.0 138.5 -- 173.1† 207.7† -- 346.2† Delos 10 72 20 1¼" 90.0 0.78 0.81 42.3 180.0† -- 225.0† 270.0† -- 450.0† Plössl 15 50 10 1¼" 60.0 1.2 0.80 42.0 120.0 -- 150.0 180.0† -- 300.0† Nagler 6 9 82 12 1¼" 100.0 0.70 0.79 41.3 200.0† -- 250.0† 300.0† -- 500.0† DeLite 11 62 20 1¼" 81.8 0.86 0.74 39.0 163.6 -- 204.5† 245.5† -- 409.1† Ethos 6 100 15 2" & 1¼" 150.0 0.47 0.66 34.7 300.0† -- 375.0† 450.0† -- 750.0† Delos 8 72 20 1¼" 112.5 0.62 0.63 33.0 225.0† -- 281.3† 337.5† -- 562.5† Nagler 6 7 82 12 1¼" 128.6 0.54 0.62 32.3 257.1† -- 321.4† 385.7† -- 642.9† DeLite 9 62 20 1¼" 100.0 0.70 0.61 32.0 200.0† -- 250.0† 300.0† -- 500.0† Plössl 11 50 8 1¼" 81.8 0.86 0.58 30.3 163.6 -- 204.5† 245.5† -- 409.1† Ethos SX 4.7 110 15 2" & 1¼" 191.5† 0.37* 0.57 29.8 383.0† -- 478.7† 574.5† -- 957.4† Delos 6 72 20 1¼" 150.0 0.47 0.48 25.3 300.0† -- 375.0† 450.0† -- 750.0† DeLite 7 62 20 1¼" 128.6 0.54 0.48 25.0 257.1† -- 321.4† 385.7† -- 642.9† Ethos SX 3.7 110 15 2" & 1¼" 243.2† 0.29* 0.45 23.5 486.5† -- 608.1† 729.7† -- 1,216.2† Nagler 6 5 82 12 1¼" 180.0† 0.39* 0.45 23.3 360.0† -- 450.0† 540.0† -- 900.0† Plössl 8 50 6 1¼" 112.5 0.62 0.41 21.7 225.0† -- 281.3† 337.5† -- 562.5† Delos 4.5 72 20 1¼" 200.0† 0.35* 0.36 18.7 400.0† -- 500.0† 600.0† -- 1,000.0† DeLite 5 62 20 1¼" 180.0† 0.39* 0.34 17.7 360.0† -- 450.0† 540.0† -- 900.0† Nagler Zoom 6 - 3 50 10 1¼" 150.0 - 300.0† 0.47 - 0.23* 0.32 - 0.17 17.0 - 8.7 300.0† - 600.0† -- 375.0† - 750.0† 450.0† - 900.0† -- 750.0† - 1,500.0† Nagler 6 3.5 82 12 1¼" 257.1† 0.27* 0.31 16.0 514.3† -- 642.9† 771.4† -- 1,285.7† Delos 3.5 72 20 1¼" 257.1† 0.27* 0.28 14.7 514.3† -- 642.9† 771.4† -- 1,285.7† DeLite 4 62 20 1¼" 225.0† 0.31* 0.27 14.3 450.0† -- 562.5† 675.0† -- 1,125.0† DeLite 3 62 20 1¼" 300.0† 0.23* 0.20 10.7 600.0† -- 750.0† 900.0† -- 1,500.0† Design Focal Length (mm) Apparent Field (°) Eye Rel. (mm) Barrel Size Mag. (x) Exit Pupil (mm) True Field (°) True Field @ 1000 yards (feet) Mag. w/2x Barlow (2x) Mag. w/2x Big Barlow or Power- mate (2x) Mag. w/2.5x Power- mate (2.5x) Mag. w/3x Barlow (3x) Mag. w/4x Power- mate (4x) Mag. w/5x Power- mate (5x)

Thanks 👍🏻 Given the limitations of a dob and a smartphone quite pleased. Impressed with the optics on the new Bresser 10” dob. They do seem rather good for a mass produced scope. 🙂

Do I go visual or imaging? 🤔

Might be different in the US. 🤔

FLO made the comment earlier in the thread that the visual side seemed to be doing OK. 🤔 Could the dealer be more of an imaging specialist?

I think the main point to come out of this thread is that while imaging has grown it hasn’t been at the expense of visual observers. They are not waning at all. It has increased the total number in this astronomy hobby not taken away from the number going the visual route.

Pity you can’t try a few prisims first to see what suits you best in your scope. No two people are the same and while one will say this one is better than anything else the next may say another is the best. Eyeballs differ. 🙂 Interesting discussion on the matter. There is someone who compared the Zeiss and non Zeiss on a small mak and couldn’t see any difference. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/480944-baader-t2-prism-vs-t2-zeiss-prism-on-planets/

Or 365Astronomy. They carry all the Baader stuff. https://www.365astronomy.com/search.php?mode=search&page=1&keep_https=yes

Now first win the lottery, buy the villa in Tenerife and build the obs with a 1m scope inside then do a bit of imaging. 😁😁😁

Perhaps the solution is to have one scope doing the imaging while you look though another scope. 🙂

On the mak doubtfull that you could tell the difference between the two different prisims. The T2 has a shorter light path which can help with a mak.

The Starbase achro refractor is an 80mm f/10 so not very demanding on eyepieces. Probably OK in such a slow scope. Think I’ll be passing on these orthos. Bet they are available for half the price under other brand names.

You mean “Remote imaging module” not electronic eyepiece don’t you? 😁

Discussion in the pub ten years in the future. ”Ah but you’re not a real astronomer until you’ve actually looked through an eyepiece” Reply ”What’s an eyepiece?” 🤔😳

They aren’t actually Tak eyepieces but are bought in from an outside supplier Daiichi Optics in Japan. Apparently quite sharp on axis but not so good off axis. Think they are really intended to go with the Starbase achro which again is made for Tak as a “beginners” scope but the Tak name isn’t used on the scope. The same eyepices are made for other brands by Daiichi.

I used a Skywatcher crayford which worked just fine and not too expensive. New mounting holes for the Skywatcher base plate will probably be needed and of course removing the corrector plate.

It's when you see them next to a checkout in Tescos or Morrisons that I’ll worry. 😂

I wonder how future developments will change the observation vs imaging discussion. In a few years you’ll be able to buy a completly automated remote observing setup that you just bring home, open up and plonk down in the middle of the lawn and it sets itself up leaving you to go inside turn on your TV and select whatever you want to look at and just press a button to capture images with no technical knowledge or effort needed. Hmmmmmmm 🤔

Gosky smartphone holder arrived yesterday. Wasn’t expensive at all on Amazon but really like it. Such a simple but effective design. A solid clamp to hold the phone and aligning with the camera couldn’t be easier. Centre the lens in the hole in the clamping head on the holder then drop in an eyepiece and twist the clamp lock and ypu’re ready to go. Makes it easy to swap eyepieces as well withput having to readjust. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Had an expensive Altair smartphone holder and honestly this is far better and easier to use. Identical to the Orion Steadypix but cheaper. There are some similar looking but slightly different super cheap ones on eBay but not sure how good they are.