Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

bingevader

Members
  • Content Count

    2,481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,027 Excellent

3 Followers

About bingevader

  • Rank
    Vacuum

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Wales
  1. I'd suggest, as a very rough comparison, to stick both 'scopes and EPs into Stellarium and have a look. As you've probably already worked out, the 17mm in the 300p would give a magnification of 88x at an aFOV of 82° and the 28mm in the 200pds would give a mag of 36x at an aFOV of 56°. So, not an east comparison to make really. However, you won't fit all of M42 for example, in the FOV, but it would be at a much higher magnification in the 300p with the 17mm. Whereas, M42 would fit comfortably in the smaller FOV at a much lower magnification in the 200pds with the 28mm. You wouldn't get all of M42 in the 300p with the 28mm either though! My 82° 30mm EP would just about do it.
  2. Mine is still coming out as orange to red because of the wind.
  3. The OVL 7mm is lovely. You've missed the Williams Optics SPL 6mm which is also lovely.
  4. How does the 32mm Skywatcher SWA compare to the 32mm Panaview, Robin?
  5. Happy to report that the optics seem to have remained impressive. Haven't tried with Saturn yet, but have been very pleased with the edge to edge sharpness at f6.
  6. I have the 4mm OVL, it's a very fine eyepiece and the 82° FOV gives plenty of drift time.
  7. You could turn the 200pds into a dob by making a rocker box?
  8. I tend to use this wonderful resource for inspiration. If someone has said they've seen something, if it's reasonable for my setup and the conditions are right, then I will have a go.
  9. Here's mine, fits over the outside of the small hole. A nice snug fit and then you can tape it on too, just to be sure. I tape the end cap on too!
  10. Me too for the AP stuff! My very layman understanding from a purely visual perspective is that the f number describes how "bendy" the primary is, whether it be a lens or mirror. A low f number means that the light has been "bent" more by the primary in order to reach the secondary or eyepiece (such as in short Newtonians with very large mirrors). A bendier mirror or lens requires more manufacture and so is more expensive. Light from the outside of the mirror/lens will travel a different distance to the secondary or eyepiece than light from the centre of the mirror/lens and so requires more correction by the eyepiece to focus all the light. That's why lower f number 'scopes need better corrected and so more expensive eyepieces.
  11. We live not too far from the coast and the weather can be a bit unpredictable. There's a reasonably sized town 6 miles away and the difference between the two can be astounding at times. Yes, your coastal site should have much better uninterrupted views out to sea, but if that is to the North, it's not necessarily an advantage. I'm not a meteorologist, but an on shore breeze in winter is likely to be warmer and wetter than the surrounding land. We have the odd bit of sea mist or fog too that rolls in all of a sudden and puts a halt to any stargazing! Put it this way, I wouldn't set off with out knowing what the weather was going to be like, but then I suppose that goes for the inland site too!
  12. If it comes with a price reduction, I've no problem with a bump. If no one has picked it up the first time, you probably should get that message anyway.
  13. There we go, I knew I'd posted it somewhere before. By Michael Bird.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.