Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

GazOC

Members
  • Posts

    16,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GazOC

  1. It took me longer than it should have to realise, Stu 🤣🤦
  2. Totally agree, Mike. In focus I see no CA on most stars on decent nights and very little on the two big gas giants It's a pretty consistent performer and it takes a good nights seeing for my 180 Mak to clearly show more lunar/ planetary detail despite the extra aperture
  3. I can only comment on the visual side of things Peter, I don't image. Both ED120s I've owned have clearly shown colour either side of focus through the eyepiece. I know tolerance for this varies from observer to observer but that some can apparently see none at all really, shall we say, "surprises" me 😉
  4. That sort of test is always going to show the difference in handling colour in between a good triplet and a good doublet and ties in with both the ED120's I've owned but I've seen plenty of reviews of the scope that mentioned comments such as "no false colour either in or out of focus" which I tend to put down to people getting a bit carried away with their new telescope.
  5. I don't think the Mak can give much more than a 1 degree FOV no matter what eyepiece is put in it due to size of the hole in the back of the mirror Unless there's a specific reason to use a 2 inch setup, such as a Crayford focuser or 2 inch eyepieces you'd like to be able to use, there's not a great deal to be gained
  6. Somebody has taken the sticker off a Televue product and stuck it on the telescope
  7. I use the KSON RDFs on my refractors (I'm sure they've been sold under many other names). They are small, cheap, lightweight and it's pretty easy to put the scope where it needs to be. Visual finders just seem to be a bit more faff to me, especially if the object you are looking for is too faint to be seen in the finder
  8. There's no baffles on the tube, Andrew the only "suspect" IMHO would be how high the baffle coming out of the hole in the primary is but it doesn't look excessively high to me given the size of the secondary spot
  9. TBH John I don't know enough about the validity of the testing used to guess but with the mirror being 200mm, the tube diameter being 215mm and the lens/ meniscus holders (the white bits either end) being 220mm I'd be surprised if the system was stopped down to less than 180mm due to any of those factors?
  10. I had 80mm f15 achro years ago that was a very good planetary/ lunar scope but it fell into disuse due to its length when I got a ED100
  11. It'll be interesting when the tests start showing up for those scopes for sure
  12. It's also a lot longer than the ED80, there'd be something seriously amiss if the Stellamira wasnt better corrected for colour than the ED80 lanthanum or no lanthanum.
  13. I've only measured the primary, nothing else, but its definitely 200mm I'd read that the later models were oversized but the original gold models weren't and were actually 180mm giving effective aperture of ~170. This doesn't look to be correct Edit: just measured the OD of the tube at 215mm, I'd be very surprised if that was the cause of any issues
  14. I know this scope has been tested by indirect means in the past and found to have an effective aperture of less than 180mm due to Maks needing an oversized primary, but I thought someone might appreciate an actual measurement of the mirror. I've just stripped one down and the diameter of the mirror is 200mm I bought this Mak when they first came out in this country, I'm pretty sure it was the first batch that FLO received from Skywatcher so it looks probable that every 180 from that point forward has an 200mm oversized primary contrary to most of the info I've seen on the internet. (The Mak I stripped arrived with the primary badly chipped and, after sending Steve photographs to confirm, he decided that it wasn't worth returning to FLO and sent me out another, perfectly fine, scope.straight away. So it's just been sitting under my bed for the last 15 years or so, with time on my hands during furlough I decided to strip it down and measure the primary)
  15. Awful in N Wales too, I didn't even bother setting up
  16. Is this what you're after? http://www.scopestuff.com/ss_smsa.htm
  17. Cheers James, sounds like the best option might be to just buy cheap FireWire laptop?
  18. My FireWire equipped laptop has finally given up the ghost leaving me high and dry with my old Imaging Source cameras. I know there are adaptors out there but reviews are mixed on a lot of them, does anyone have experience of one that works in this particular situation? cheers
  19. I tend to stick with my 100 Deg eyepieces in my Equinox 80 purely for the FOV. The short focal length of the scope and the wide field EPs are a perfect match for open clusters/ starfields etc, it's hard even going back to the 68 degrees of my Hyperions.
  20. I agree, Mike. I've owned all the f5 Skywatcher refractors at one time or another, tried most of the filter options and the best views for me are the unfiltered ones The only time I've been really dissatisfied with a short refractor was when it was my only scope because it does have very distinct strengths and weaknesses. Match it up with a reasonable planetary/ lunar scope and enjoy it for what it is (Money allowing, of course!)
  21. Does seem cheap but with large scopes like that sometimes the owner just wants rid because they can't manage the weight any more or it's taking up too much space At that price you could factor in the possibility the mirror needs resilvering and still have a good deal
  22. Just a 127mm Mak but a couple of days ago, due having so much free time from being furloughed, I finally got around repairing it over 15 years after buying it secondhand and finding out it wasn't exactly as described in the sellers advertisement. The back was taken off and the deadpoint in the focuser sorted out up. The secondary baffle has been removed (I may or may not look at replacing it depending on how it performs, first signs are that I probably won't bother) as the glue had spread somehow to the corrector plate and the scope was collimated which is a bit of an art in itself with these scopes It's goes well with the EQ 3/2 as a grab and go lunar and white light solar setup for quick looks on the short summer nights I bought it so long ago it's almost like getting a new scope for nothing
  23. Seeing as no one else has had a stab at this 😉. Yep, the FR does correct for aberrations (field curvature IIRC) in the SCT but I'm not sure if they are detectable at the eyepiece or it's just for the pixel peepers
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.