alan potts

As normal that makes my effort look very second rate, an excellent shot though I am not over keen on the way the bright stars have come out, but maybe this is scope related. Can I ask you to take a decent shot of M4, I tried it a few days ago and posted it but it is far from as good as I would like. Not sure of your location I could well be in a better place for this cluster. Great cluster shot though. Alan

It will be deep in the Members equipment section it was a few years ago now but still relevant today, I still have the Mk2 and it is a fine if somewhat expensive piece of kit, but then I find that true of all TeleVue, I have a fair amount of their eyepieces too. As for the imaging question, though I do AP it will be best for you ask on the Imaging section as a question, there are some excellent folk there that will help you. My guess would be as the difference between the Mk1 and Mk 2 concerned mainly only the edges then for AP with anything but a very large full frame sensor you should be fine. Alan

Just what I was wondering, I use to set mine up every night from scratch and whilst PA is not critical for visual in needs to be reasonable. The other thing that I had a problem with which involved pointing was low battery power, so I went to mains transformer after that, that was on a HEQ 5 Pro

Just so you don't get confused, the Home position is pointing at the pole unless you have told it otherwise, though I am not sure you can do that with your mount. Alan

Park the mount mean the scope slews to point at the Northern, in your case pole, then the normal thing is to turn off, mines parked in it now. If you do this and for whatever reason it does not point to the pole there is something very wrong. The other thing you can do is select different stars on the Align I again had a bit of an issue with this.

Ensure the coordinates of where you are are correct, this caught me out once, they actually reversed themselves some how, I'm sure it was not me. Also check time is correct.

I've seen these Paradigm's dressed up a good few different ways going right back to when I restarted in 2009, I first saw the from a US company, Astro Tech or something very much like that, I bought a 40mm from them which in turn was the same as the SW Aero. I don't use my eyepieces very much at all now since venturing into the Astro Photography side, must say that seem rather a waste of 26 Televues, in fact I was thinking of getting rid of some now I have moved the LX 200 from the observatory and rarely use the Dob. I feel though they are all going to much of a muchness, like so many and I have never seen anyone, like you, put them side by side. Alan

Look forward to seeing what you have to say, I'm a bit like you were, often told beginners to buy them without ever having one. Your other set the Meade HD were very overpriced over here when they came out, so much so I moved onto TeleVue, I had the SWA range and most of the UWA range beforehand. HD 's here in Bulgaria were 200 e each, may even have bee 225e, so long back I forget now.

Never really thought about it but I feel the two previous cover anything I am likely to think of. Like Pete I do enjoy being outside with the capture and look up most of the time, even have my Dob outside as well sometimes. I could easily afford a complete remote set-up but like banging on with my AZEQ6 and scopes, am going to upgrade to a decent CMOS soon, then maybe I will sleep out there. Alan

I have done it in the past John from a better position than yourself but it is far from easy even here. I used the m/n 190mm and rate it harder than Sirius. Alan

Nice report, from memory I have split it with the M/N 190mm. My skies are very good here (most of the time) and I don't recall it being a difficult one, but if you have had problems with a 10 inch, then it must be, maybe it is all about conditions like Sirius. Alan

Well when I get round to doing it I will let you know. Weather is poor lately though last night was clear but with close to a full moon, didn't bother in the end. I think the AZ EQ has a higher weight rating than the EQ6 but I could be wrong, I feel if I were to fit it up it may be with the .63 reducer which make the length a bit more manageable for someone without any experience at this longer length. Alan

The good thing is I already have the ADM rail for it, to try it would not take so long. Alan

As a pure field flattener the Hotech SCA I feel works very well indeed, you can get them from FLO. I use it with a Canon camera on a 800mm F7 scope, I believe they can handle F5-F8, I bought it on the recommendation of a very fine on site imager .

Can I ask what sort of weight the 12 inch is on the mount with the other running gear. I have a AZ EQ 6 and would like to try my Meade 12 inch SC on it, I have always thought it was a none starter as the mount is rated at 25kg and I think the tube is about 18kg but can't find any info, 10in yes and 8 inch but not 12. Interesting build and nicely done if I may say, the bricks you are using are the exact same I made a wall of outside😀. Alan

I had something a bit like this from my Canon 40D, and found that it was me having ticked an incorrect box in DSS, I changed the darks to Median setting and it appeared to have solved it. I was told dither was the way to stop it without darks but have not been able to explore this yet due to weather. Alan

I agree with the 7mm Pentax, utterly superb eyepiece I have used many a time a few years back. However with the 180mm being fairly slow and as such kind to all eyepieces what about the Meade 6.7mm, I had this and it was a very good performer. Alan

I am not sure when but I am asking myself the same questions as you, as much as I feel the CEM 120 may be a better mount when pier or tripod is taken into account the EQ 8 works out the same as the mount head of the CEM, more or less., so this option is a fair bit more expensive. I have always been pleased, though not delighted with Skywatcher gear and feel I may go for the cheaper option, but then I get better and clearer nights here, and most likely more of them, it's difficult this one. Alan

Looks a great piece of work, I fit the none IT savvy section of SGL nicely. My wife understands it well, it's known as me doing the dishes.

I do much the same Olly, with having a dark roof covering it can get rather hot inside and like you we get well above 35 many a day, last year 42.3C, almost enough to make the roof covering melt.

I had this the other day with the new version of DSS and I found that it worked fine without the Flats, I have no idea why because on another shot of M42 the same flats worked, try it without flats and see.

I had both the zooms about 9 years ago and they were very good around the centre but got a bit colourful towards the edges, I also had the sleeve that took the 5mm end of the short one down to 4mm. I rather liked them but got bitten by the Televue bug and that was that. Alan

Nice idea there, I see why TV cost what they do but the field curve really shows but sharp.

It is a great target and as a fellow Mod has said many a time, veiwing only this is worth the cost of the Olll filter, or words to that effect. The one thing it does need to be though is dark, even a small amount of Moon can wash it out even in fairly large instruments. Alan

I bought a 180mm Mak in order to try and take my mind off a 150mm tripet, it didn't really work. I feel over all the contrast from a refractor is better than that from a larger Mak. I have 115mm APO and I have often used them the same night. In this case the Mak shows more as it a good deal larger. I still think Maks are fine scopes but there is just something about a refractor that I just can't put my finger on that still makes me want a larger one than I have. The refractor will most likely win on wide field views too as most Maks are F12 or so, mine is F 15, whereas the refractor is likely to be less than F8, though you can of course get longer ones. My Mak I tend to use for planets more than anything. Alan