Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Alfian

Members
  • Posts

    2,008
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alfian

  1. The chap that owned the 100ed before me had it on what I am fairly sure was the older AZ5 as sold by TS Optics which like the Porta had an alli' tripod. He also used it with a pillar extension. I gathered the lighter tripod wasn't an issue. I'll confess to liking 'scopes over mounted rather than under but that does make things less portable.
  2. When I had my 100ED I mounted it on An AZ4 with the 1.75" steel legged tripod and in terms of stabilty was perfectly adequate. The pillar extension made it even better, avoiding some back ache, but makes the whole plot heavier. An az4 second hand can be picked up for £100 ish.
  3. Enjoyed your review thank you. I have the older style Nirvana 7mm and it is excellent. A keeper.
  4. A "sub-par" view of the moon through an 8" scope? A very modest telescope (Eg 90/102 mak) can give surprisingly good and satisfying luna views, certainly enough to give most newcomers a wow moment. An 8" is quite some way beyond that and is sufficient to give many seasoned astronomers a lifetimes enjoyment. If possible, it might be worth looking up a local astronomy club and see if you can get a look through someones 'scope and see how it matches expectations.
  5. It's sounding like easy tracking is a priority so an eq3/2 (steel legged) based set up would work. You can add motor drives at some point if wanted.The 127 Mak would do you nicely for planetary etc. You could add a wide field scope later. Its worth mentioning budgeting for eyepieces. Maksutovs are light (read cheaper) on eyepieces whereas something like an f5 wide field reflector or refractor gets more picky (read more expensive). It's not worth me talking about my first scope as it was bought for me and I wouldn't recommend it, but if I was now to buy a "first" scope that would cover most needs and be easy on eyepiecesit would be a 6" f8 dob. I currently have a collection of scopes that reflect how things have developed for me and it seems to be the way for many SGL members so I would agree with the idea of jumping in and getting going and see where things take you.
  6. The Society for Popular Astronomy doesn't seem to get mentioned so much so thought I'd give a bit of a thumbs up to its bimonthly magazine. I was gifted membership to the SPA last Xmas and although I haven't (yet) joined in with any activities or meetings, the magazine is very good and imo in itself is well worth the cost of membership. Thinner than the likes of AN and S@M but not cluttered with adverts and some good content. Worth a look, or putting on a wanted list.
  7. A tricky choice between the 127 and the 102 makes. There is no doubting the increased light gathering of the 127 and it is noticeable but although the 127 is not heavy heavy and quite manageable the 102 is, as John has commented, distinctly smaller. I store mine together with its dew shield and finder in a cheap tool box picked up at a local household store. The 102 will, at a pinch, mount on a ball head/photo tripod making for a very lightweight (but limited) grab n go set up.
  8. With respect to the Mak127 in general terms, collimation wise Maks are pretty solid scopes and unless they have been knocked in transit (assuming original accurate allignment) or abused in some other way they hold collimation very well. I've had 4 altogether, still have a 90 and 102 with no problems. They have a narrow field of view, - luna, planets, globulars, doubles - fine, but wider DSOs, open clusters like M45 not really its thing at all. Mounting wise, although surprisingly weighty in a compact way when you first hold one your hands, they are easy to mount. An EQ3/2 will do very nicely. Given that with a Mak you are probably going to be ofen using it at 100X (plus) then slomo/fine adjustment controls (or a motor drive) are going to be useful so with an Alt/Az mount something like the AZ5 would be better than an AZ4 although I have used the Mak127 on the latter. Re above, although Maks are enclosed, they too are reflectors of sorts. What we think of as "normal" reflectors are pretty tough too. Neither Maks or "reflectors" take kindly to seriously clumsy handing. One thing about "reflectors" is that checking and correcting collimation isn't difficult once you get your head round it. Something like a 150/F8 Dobsonian is a doddle to set up and as mentioned in another post is a very useful scope.
  9. Cool down on a Mak 127, as with most scopes, will depend on the differential between where the scopes stored and outside temperature. I found when I had the 127 Mak that if I planned to use it I would put it in the back of the car (ouside) in the early evening, later on by the time I had set up I was pretty much ready to go in 15 minutes. From scratch though if its pretty cold out, I'd allow 30-45 minutes. Higher magnifications benefit from a longer settled period. its also worth remembering that it takes time for your night vision to kick in well and to "get your eye in" ie the longer you spend at the eye piece the more you will tend to see - seeing conditions permitting.
  10. The point I was making was that its not just the tripod although that would make a difference but imo the EQ3/2 is not really up to the job either. It seems to be the way that when it comes to telescope/mount packages, they are frequently sold with a mount that is the bare minimum for the size and weight of the scope. Yes, you can use the scope on the mount but in practice it quickly becomes frustrating because every time you touch the scope it takes too long for the vibes to settle down. Its not what many people want to hear (me included when I first started out) but you (eventually?) wind up spending as much on a mount as the scope. There are exceptions of course. When talking reflectors, this is why Dobsonians are so popular and so often recommended, because you not only get a lot of aperture for your money but also a stable usable mount. In terms of recommendations I would look at the second hand market (if that a possibility for you) and get a good 4" Refractor and a decent separate mount, be it an EQ5 (or equivalent) or an Alt/Az. I'm biased, but my Tal100r is a very good achromat (probably better than the the SW or the Bresser) and was bought for well less than half the price of new. Buying this way, when you come to upgrade and sell on, you will lose very little.
  11. I havn't seen or used a Bresser 102/1350, and it may be a nice scope, but I doubt very much that it will work well with an EQ3/2. I have a Tal 100r (100mm/1000-F10), also an EQ3/2 and a Vixen GP (EQ5 equivalent but better). I do not and would not use it on the EQ3/2 and although it will go on the Vixen GP, I use it with a Giro Alt/Az mount, 1.75" steel legged tripod with an extension pillar. Its far easier to use and much less back ache. The stability of a mount is really important.
  12. A beautiful scope David, congratulations. Viewed as a life long (and may it indeed be so) investment, then the hit on the wallet becomes less eye watering. May it give you lasting pleasure.
  13. Outer "space"? Inner space? Space in the boot? Space in the fridge? Plenty of space everywhere. Most likely, space in the dustbin.
  14. Tricky one. Over the last 10 years or so, most of our holidays have been taken either in Northumberland or Dumfries & Galloway. The choice for both my wife and myself has been somewhere near the coast, wild, quiet, unspoiled (relatively), and not too long a drive from West Yorkshire. The spin off for both locations is that they are dark, but that wasn't the prime reason for choosing them. Moving on, literally, we liked Dumfries and Galloway so much we moved here so I'm a lucky guy. Holidays are not too much of topic of discussion at the moment but guessing it will be still somewhere that fits the above criteria. Scottish Highlands?
  15. Yes, as far as I can see this the Skywatcher 102 Skymax (Maksutov) on an EQ1 mount and as near matters the same the Levenhuk item asper your original post. The 102 mak is a nice scope, I have had the Skywatcher in the past and currently have the Celestron version of it. It works well enough on an EQ2 so can't say how it will be on the EQ1 although it is quite a light and compact scope. the 102 Mak works quite well on a decent photo tripod with a pan and tilt head or a reasonably heavy duty ball head but fine adjustments a little trickier.
  16. The 130eq was the first 'scope I had and like yourself I found myself trying sort out some of its less appealing qualities. The built in rdf went pronto, replaced with a Rigel Quickfinder, at least then I could find the easy objects that had thus far eluded me. I had difficulty with collimation, not an unusual problem for a beginner. However I discovered that most of the problem was down to the focuser tube moving in ways it shouldn't. This was rectified by fitting new guide strips, one of the three originals was not in the right place and another was absent (huh?), big improvement! The mount/tripod looks the business but is barely up to the job in terms of holding the scope sufficiently steady, ie it takes ages to settle down after you've touched it. Celestron call it a "CG3" which you would think equates to an EQ3. Not so, it is much more an EQ2 and the 130eq is at the top end weight and bulk wise that it will cope with. Tightening things up (but not overtightening) helps as does putting a little bit of weight on the fairly flimsy plastic spreader. I eventually replaced the tripod with a second hand aluminium item which didn't look as impressive as the stainless steel one, but it lent itself much better to being modified into something much sturdier. The standard issue eyepieces are not so good but replacement with modestly priced plossl EPs makes a big difference. As you can perhaps deduce I had something of a love/hate relationship with the 130eq. Only you can decide how much time and resources you are willing to put in to get it round to your liking. I wished I'd moved on sooner than I did. A well set up 130/f5 reflector can be a very useful scope. I bought a Heritage 130p as a grab 'n' go type scope and despite it simplicity its very capable. To put all this into some kind of perspective I've always found myself making some modifications to whatever set up I have (and I doubt if I'm alone in that), it's part of the astronomy bug!
  17. Will do, although with the usual weather and other distractions it may take a little time, but I'll do my best.
  18. Looking at the angles of those faint lines, they obviously correspond well to those I've drawn on the cropped snapshot of your video. Hmmmm?
  19. Wow, that image is stunning and if poetry wasn't enough, quite inspiring.
  20. I use the little white sellotape double sided sticky foam thingies, from a local stationer, similar to the items that the Quickfinder came with. Works OK.
  21. The odd thing is that are two "reflections". In the first video there is one going roughly top to bottom and another briefly gong from the left down to the middle bottom, both in absolute straight line, no wobble or anything. I've taken an image and cropped it and indicated the marks and the track (roughly). It has to be something optical one way or another If it was a direct reflection of something outside the scope there would have to be two sources causing this thing. Very odd. I haven't much of a clue as to how these secondary flats are made, perhaps someone more enlightened can come up with an idea.
  22. I think I can see the "line" that you mean that appears to move with the camera and looks like a reflection.
×
×
  • 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.