Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

RedSpot

Members
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

34 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Glasgow

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just to round off my own customs experience, I've just got a letter back in response to my bor286 appeal form. Guess what, they've decided that I should get a refund of £48 from the original £56 charges. They won't refund the handling fee because apparently the information provided by the sender (i.e. Daystar) was ambiguous as to whether charges should be applied or not. So maybe a note for the future would be to ask the sender to mark in big block capitals that it is a repair and not a sale. Anyhow, all is well that ends well minus £8 but I can't be bothered with the fight to reclaim that from anyone.
  2. Hi, You could upgrade the auto-tracking system with a Skywatcher AZ GOTO handset, they are compatible with the SupaTrak mount head. Even though the Synta based mount heads are a similar design, I don't believe the Celestron AZ handsets are compatible. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with some more upgrade ideas. Stephen
  3. Yep, a good option there Will. I would definitely go for the SW .85x flattener/reducer, makes quite a difference for imaging. Stephen
  4. I'm in the process of sharing a similar experience to yourself Dave. I had sent my Quark Chromo back to Daystar for an under warranty repair, no problems shipping it out but on the return leg HMRC have just extorted £56 from me before they would let me collect it from Parcel Force. I've paid it just to get my Quark back and have just sent off a bor286 appeal form with a pile of evidence to try and get my cash back. It should be an open and shut case with me getting a refund asap but my expectation is that it will be anything but! They do seem to be very easily confused, the tracking showed them calculating and then further revising import charges. That went on for about week before they moved it onto Parcel Force. It's like they can't understand the concept of anyone sending something to a country outwith the EU for warranty repair. You would think that would be something that happens all the time. I'll await their response with bated breath. At least I've got my Quark back and it's working perfectly . Stephen
  5. Thanks Gina, I missed this the first time around on the BBC and last night too but that's what IPlayer is for. Looks like an interesting watch. Cheers for the heads up, Stephen
  6. Just to round off this thread then. Picked up a new shorter version Omni 12mm so job done, pictures attached. All I need now is for the cloud to clear up and I can have a go. The day time test looks promising though. Thanks to all for their input, including Celestron for their response. Clear Skies (I wish), Stephen
  7. Hot from the Inbox, the reply from Christopher at Celestron! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Stephen, Thank you for emailing into Celestron. I would be happy to help you out with your question. The two eyepieces are identical. The main differences between the two are the rubber eyeguard and the silver barrel (one being longer than the other). There are no advantages between the two as they have the same optical design and field stop. I hope this helps. Best Regards, Christopher Celestron Technical Support -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8. As far as the source of the eyepieces are concerned, who knows! There is that much inter-trading and re-branding going on between manufacturers and suppliers that it is anybody's guess. Joe, I suspect that the shorter barrel is probably the more modern one. From my own limited testing of the two eyepieces in the picture, they don't show any differences whatsoever in the quality of image so I'm guessing that any enhancements are marginal. No word back from Celestron yet but I'll post it as soon as it arrives. Stephen
  9. Hi, I realise that this is an old post and I'm not sure if you are still looking for the Binomate instructions but here they are in case anyone else is looking for them (albeit they are a bit crumpled). Cheers, Stephen
  10. Thanks Ruud, agree that the TVs are the best around. I've got a 20mm one myself and it is brilliant, the second Omni was just a cheap way to try out the BVs. I think a lot of the images used on supplier websites are out of date although you would hope that Celestron would take more care than others. I've actually fired off a question directly to Celestron this earlier this morning so I'll see what they come back with and I'll stick the response on here.
  11. Hi All, I've recently aquired a binoviewer for next to nothing, an AE Binomate. I realise that this isn't the best BV out there by some margin but I thought that this would be a cheap way to try it out and see if binoviewing was for me before spending a packet on something pricier. The BV came without any eyepieces, however I already had a 12mm Celestron Omni Plossl kicking about and decided to pick up an additional one to give me a matched pair as a starter for ten. To this end, I picked up a second hand one from Amazon for £15 which was in mint unmarked condition (in fact it looks brand new). However, when I compared it to my existing 12mm Omni, the body of the eyepiece is a good bit longer than my existing one and the rubber eyecup is a slightly different design. I also noticed that the box is a different design too although both carry an identical model number stamp on the box (#93319). I've attached a couple of pictures to show this. I realise that manufacturer's change there designs from time to time but does anyone know which of these two is the more modern design and if one is superior to the other in any way? I thought I'd ask the question more out of curiosity than anything else. Grateful for any insights or knowledge about Celestron's release history for the Omni EP range. Cheers, Stephen
  12. Just to round off this thread then. The Mount arrived and it is indeed identical to the Skytee 2, in fact it is a Skytee 2. Indeed, the box and packaging that it is shipped in has Skytee printed on it. That being the case, the usual Skytee strengths and weaknesses that have been written about extensively in other threads apply. As John mentioned, the standard saddles are the usual miserable state of affairs so they will be getting modded as soon as possible. Other than that, I am very impressed by what is otherwise a very well engineered and substantial mount. Cheers, Stephen
  13. Thanks John, I'd seen the other forum thread on the saddle problem so assuming everything else is in order, I'll definitely be looking at an alternative saddle solution. Certainly not worth the risk if the standard fit ones are dodgy. Cheers, Stephen
  14. Darn it, you are quite correct Peter so not such a good deal after all. Still I've left the order as is. At £197 for the mount head, I reckon that's still a sizeable saving on the Skytee2. I do have steel legs on the AZ4 but I'll probably pick up an EQ5 tripod at some point just to keep both mounts complete. I'll report back when it arrives. Stephen
  15. I'm 99% certain that it is Rob so I'm going to jump in. It's a voucher that I've got which expires tonight so no time to check with the dealer. I'll stick a post on here when it arrives with the result. Cheers, Stephen
×
×
  • 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.