Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

part timer

Members
  • Content Count

    615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About part timer

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, JUst my 2p's worth! With the eq5 family of mounts it is possible to add goto later if you really want to. To be honest I dont see the point for visual. it is soooo much faster and easier to just use a finder and low power eyepice to find fainter targets. for planets, goto is going to get frustrating fast. Most of them are easily visible with the naked eye (need the finder for uranus and neptune). Just point at them and look instead of spending 25 minutes swearing at goto and then the clouds coming over! As i've said goto is great for imagers, but for all of the observing you have mentioned
  2. The PST is really aimed at giving full disc views. It is sometimes worth popping in something like your 8mm to look at a particulat prominence but generally you get much more detail with lower powers, most people seem to agree that 15-20mm simple eypieces like plossls, orthos and Kellners are just about perfect. oh and barlows are very hit and miss with the PST too, best just to use eyepieces alone. I managed to view a Coronal mass ejection with my PST a few years ago thanks to a heads up on this forum and was treated to view which made all the images of the event look totaly pants! The thing
  3. In short no! I usualy stick to my 17mm which gives good views in 90% of cases I sometimes use my 13mm but even this is normally to much for the conditions. (you have to remember that there is more turbulence during the day due to the very sunlight you want to look at! I do use my 10.5mm, 8mm and even my 6mm ortho but the view is almost always better when going back out to the 17mm. hope this helps!
  4. I should add, that the binoculars themselves are very nice. But they were always the budget range for Zeiss and were popular for being decent quality at a decnt price. Unless you get them for a sensible price however your money is better spent elsewhere. Sadly the number of charity shop binoculars has fallen dramatically since the rise of Ebay. There used to be some real bargains to be had and with added bonus of being able to check them out first!
  5. Good job, I saw it for the first time last October from loch ness. After years of trying with larger telescopes and binoculars from various parts of England with no success I could not believe how totaly obvious and easy to see it was with my ST80 and my 42mm binoculars. Alos got the NA neb in the same night (also sooooo obvious). Untill then I thought my latest location was quite good for light pollution but that trip really made me realise the sad extent to which our skys have degraded!
  6. Of course, the ridiculous prices they go for on ebay dont help! The last pair I had were slightly worn cosmetically but in reasonable optical condition and cost £30 from an dealer in abou 2004/5. Sold in about 2007 for the same. Ebay prices regularly reach £200! These are 25-30+ year old bins with god knows what history and no oportunity to try before buying. Just not worth it. People just seem to see Zeiss and auto matically think less than a grand is a good deal!
  7. Just my vortex viper 10x42's After using thse I just couldn't see the point in keeping all my old bins. They just blow them all away. and being so small there easy to hold as well! First time I spent so much on binoculars and now I see why i should have done it before. If i add up all i've spent on cheap bins it's not far off what I bought the vipers for! The only other pair i kept were my original old soviet 8x30's which I kept for sentimenal reasons having used them since the very early eighty's.
  8. It's definitely worth a go if you have the time. I have done it on three different cheap binoculars. The first was an old 8x30 which required the objective to be loosened and then twisted round on an eccentric washer thingy (bit technical but stay with me!). After quite a long time I did make then fully usable, although they were never perfect as I would knock them out a bit when doing up the objective. Second was a pair of Liddl 10x50s whch turned out to have prism adjustment screws both ontop and under the prism housing (had to peel off rubber grip and re-glue it later. Again this was fiddly
  9. Being totalsy honest, there are better ways to spend your money. Your crrent barlow is ok and you have long focal length telescope in your sig. This will help you get higher powers with the eypieces you have already. For planetary work, it is more important to have a range of mid to high power eyepices which enables you to adapt to our unstable atmospheric conditions. Also in an LX 200 you need to collimate (or at least check collimation) each time you observe, as this has a large effect on how much detail you will see. Some people prefer not to use a barlow at all ( i prefer a barlow with sho
  10. In short, yes! The great reviews of both the BGO's and the KK Volcano top ortho's have created the current silly prices being asked. It's our own fault! Truth is the BGO's were always really well made and great performance for a decent price. What they are not, is eyepieces you should pay the current second hand prices for, unless you are a collector rather than an obsever and you really MUST have that last focal length! Once you get to the silly prices people are paying now you may as well get a wider field and decent eyerelief with it. When the volcano tops and BGO's were still easily avail
  11. Probably possible as the objectives are usually the best bit of those bins but in general the build quality is a bit plasticy on and so the end result may very well be just a pile of junk with some superglue mess all over. Could experience some difficuly in get decnt focusing as the Zoom arrangement will have to go and will mess with the focal length. (ie. put the eyepiece in the wrong place) but if the bits were cheap enough be worth a go.
  12. I only use one set of binoculars for any use now. They are my 10x40 Vortex Vipers. I have had a lot of binoculars in the past and have enjoyed all of them but the vipers are in a different league. For once I did go to a shop and try some other bins out. I originally had the idea od getting the Hawke ED's. I tried some cheaper bins first, including the pentax PCF and they were all pretty good. The Hawke's were clearly better though and i decided were definatley worth the extra. Then I tried the Vortex. There was a noticable step up again over the Hawke. At this point I realised These were as go
  13. I have owned and used both of these on my f8 newtwnian, my 90mm skywatcher maksutov and my f5 achromat. No contest at all. Get the Televue, Image quality is better in every way, eyepiece is smaller and of a different league in terms of build quality. It is just a better eyepiece.
  14. To be honest (and I am a BIG TAL fan). I never thought much of the 2x Tal barlow. Great build quality but wasn't an amazing barlow. It's also MUCH too yellow and dims the view far too much at high manifications. It also throws the eyerelief back too far out of the eypiece. I still have the three times TAL and that is actually much better and does not really dim or yellow the view at all! The eye relieif thing doesn't happen as much either. The only problem with it is the tiny lens which makes it difficult to use with anything above 17-18mm eyepieces. Anyway there are still many pretty good alt
  15. Hi, I use my ST 80 on camera tripod and take it all over with me. it is my most used scope just because it so portable and simple to use. I was not tempted to go for the 102 (although to be fair I do have a bigger scope). The 80 will show you just about everthing you could want to see and show most of it very well indeed. I took mine to the scottish highlands last October and was absolutely thrilled with it's performance. The best observing I have ever had! Given your original post I'd say the 80 and simple but fairly chunky camera tripod would be ideal!
×
×
  • 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.