Bobby1970

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

You are quite right and that is why I didn't say that. The thread demonstrates very well that it can be done with an Alt Az mount.

Olly

My mistake. You did say that Alt/Az was the wrong mount for astrophotography, just to clear things up. ;-)

Which, the existance of this thread proves to be an incorrect statement.  :-P

14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I like this thread, as I've already said, and I like your images. However, I'm not able to accept the phrase, 'The so-called wrong equipment.' It IS the wrong equipment. The right equipment for DS imaging is the equatorial mount. I think it's important to bear in mind that beginners will be drawn to this thread. For me this is an excellent thread about what can be done with what is, no bones about it, the wrong equipment.

Olly

IMHO what you are saying is like saying a "disposable camera is the wrong type of equipment for talking landscape photos" tbh.

When the fact it, it isn't.

To take the best (DSO) astro photos, yes you need EQ mount etc. But stating that astrophotography cannot be done without an EQ mount etc is, IMHO simply an incorrect blanket statement.

I agree with you that beginners could be drawn to a thread like this, and once again, in my opinion, its worth highlighting to those people that you do not "need" to spend a fortune to carry out some sort of astrophotography.  If this then helps more people get into the hobby that can only be a good thing, rather than seeing them put off by the cost of getting into some sort of imaging.

58 minutes ago, DevonSkies said:

Aside from the goto issue, do you find the mount tracks well enough when it's aligned with the target?

Yes. It did. Well, as well as a goto can. Certainly for visual it was more than good enough. Only thing I have noticed is at high mags when imaging planets or the moon there sometimes appears to be a bit of "drift" so to speak. 

I had, until recently an ST102 and Mak 127. I have replaced 102 woth a 120 and 80 lol. 

Anyway. I always found the combination of the two scopes very good. The Mak was excellent on the moon and planets. And certainly more portable than my old 8 inch dob. 

My only complaint is when I use it on the goto mount, it just doesn't seem accurate enough for the narrow field of the scope. But maybe it's just me. 

What a great thread this is. Thanks to all for their efforts, love seeing what can be done with the so called "wrong" equipment. 

A few of mine. All with Skywatcher Alt/Az GOTO. Most with ST102, one M42 was with 127 Mak

Thanks for looking :-)

My other "new" frac. Lol 

7 minutes ago, DevonSkies said:

Thanks, that's good info. I have this padded bag for my ST102:

http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/geoptik-padded-case-for-100mm-refractors-f750.html

and it's actually oversized for the scope - in fact I'm sure an ST120 would fit. I'm wondering if I'm taking that bag on holiday anyway, I might as well fill it up and put an ST120 in it!

I have seen a couple of 120's for sale recently, think there is one on astroboot and one on here. They are around the £150 mark i think. I got mine foe £120 so am extremely happy.:-)

Also just sold/part exed the ST102 for a ST80. :-)

3 hours ago, DevonSkies said:

Looks good. How do you find the size/weight compared to the ST102? Does it still make a good grab-and-go?

For a scope that is only 18mm more aperture i was initially surprised at how much bigger it was. I intend on taking it away on holiday to cornwall with me so it is still just as portable as the 102 was really. I have a padded carry bag which came with it and that makes things a little easier. The vixen porta II folds down to a reasonable size and then one eypeice case. All in all a fairly protable set up i would say. I am considering trying it on the Skywatcher Alt/Az goto mount but i think it will push it beyond the reccomended payload lol

My "new" ST120 :-)

Finally had a proper first light session with my ST120 last night.

I was very impressed. Especially for the £120 i paid for it.

Andromeda looked stunning in a 2" 28mm eyepiece. Certaqinly close to or indeed maybe the best view i have ever had of it.

I also managed to find comet catalina which had eluded me on other occasions with the ST102.

Orion nebula looked as glorious as ever but i am sure more of the extent of the nebulosity was visible.

M1, although still a smudge in the eyepiece was a clearer more defined smudge again in comparison to the ST102

M81 and M82 also were much easier to locate and the views were clearer with the 120. I even managed to spot (using averted vision) some small NGC object, the number of which escapes me, just to the south of these two.

All in all a great few hours were spent.

1 hour ago, Alan64 said:

Physics is incapable of being "unfair".  It is what it is....

I have an 80mm f/6 achromat.  It even came with its own vampire-star...

 

At f/6, the aberration is well controlled, up to a moderate magnification...

 

However, research the colour-suppression performance of the faster Synta 80mm f/5 achromats(Orion, Sky-Watcher, iOptron, et al).  Then, add an extra 40mm to said f-stop.  The aberration increases with aperture when the same f-stop is maintained.  Again, a 120mm f/5 achromat should offer, at times, wonderful if not stellar deep-sky performance, and that is its strong suit.

My mistake, i never realised "oodles and gobs" was a widely used term in the world of Physics. lol

My statement had nothing to do with physics. But everything to do with your opinion, which is in stark contrast to myself and others personal view of using these scopes over many years.

As i said, some people are clearly more sensitive to some purple fringing than others, hence why so many people own or have owned these scopes, many of whom recognise their limitations but also recognise their strengths. I used to have an 8 inch Dob myself, the views were better than any short tube achromat, however, it is often said that the best scope is the one you use the most and this means portability and ease of set up, for many people. This is where a short achromat excels at a very low price point.

Taken with an ST102 and a DSLR, on ALT/AZ GOTO mount, not done by myself, but certainly not too shabby either. Even with the oodles of fringing ;-)

I have used 6mm TMB Planetary EP in my ST102 and it seems fine, not sure how much these are these days. I also used 9mm Celestron Xcel-Lx, which also seems fine in pretty much any scope i have ever used it in.

2 hours ago, Alan64 said:

A 120mm f/5 achromat is going to exhibit oodles and gobs of false colour on every bright object you observe.  Do you remember kaleidoscopes as a kid, and it gets worse as the magnification is increased.  A fast achromat however excels at observing the dimmer deep-sky objects; not too terribly bright, mind you.  I

I think some of this is a little unfair. There are several members who have owned or do own fast achromat scopes and I for one would not say it exhibited "oodles and gobs" of false colour. 

If you went down the reflector route, be advised you will need to be more careful when transporting the scope and it will also need collimating now and then. 

Some people do not find CA a problem. Some find it more so. I got myself a semi apo filter for next to nothing second hand and it does diminish the CA somewhat. But the flip side is a slightly yellow cast to the objects you are viewing. 

The best course of action is to try one of the scopes for yourself and decide if you find it acceptable. I do think that ultimately you will end up with more than one scope though. Most people seem to   

2 hours ago, menacegtr said:

@Bobby1970 . finally someone that used the ST 120mm. Can you please recommend a good 6/7mm EP to add to what will be in the box of the startravel and would you recommend a Barlow? and if so what type

                                                              Regards. Dave:

If we ever get some decent cloud free nights, i will happily report my findings on this scope. I have a TMB Planetary II eyepiece so will give it a go with that at some point. 

Having had an ST102 for years and now an ST120 (which i am still waiting for first light with, damn clouds!). I can only echo what has been said here. There is no "one scope for everything" I have a 127mm Mak and on planets/moon its great and as others say, you can really push the mag with this scope. But for star clusters, galaxies, nebulas etc the Startravel is the weapon of choice for these targets.

I got the ST as my first scope. The moon gives more than acceptable views in it imho. I have also had a look at Jupiter with it on occasions where i couldn't be bothered to swap scopes. lol

I would get the ST again in a heartbeat, then when funds permit, get yourself a little Mak for planetary work. I used to have a 90mm one and it was a good little scope. Mars, venus, Jupier and Saturn all looked good in it, i even took some images of these targets with it and they were quite surprising for such a small scope. 

58 minutes ago, DevonSkies said:

I do wonder whether I actually should have got the ST120 in the first place. I was undecided between the two when I made the purchase, and decided on the 102 because I thought it would be more portable. But in the end the ST120 is only 10cm longer and 2cm wider, and for DSOs one needs all the aperture one can get!

I'd be interested to hear how you think it compares to the 102 when you get it. Will you have the chance to compare side by side?

Yes. I will. I am very much looking forward to comparing all aspects of the two scopes. I will let you know how it goes. 

Great review and sums up pretty much how i feel about my ST102. I have had it for a good number of years now and in fact use it on a Porta II mount myself.

However, it is going to be surplus to requirements shortly as i am waiting for............................an ST120 to arrive :-)

I use a semi-apo filter in my diagonal and it works quite well, it does impart a slightly yellow cast to the view though. But i can live with that.

Helios Fieldmaster 10x50. very happy with them.