johnturley

Just the 2 metre cable that came with the camera, its all I need, I get frame rates of over 100 fps. John

Thanks for the information Peter, I've just downloaded v 4.1.11226 64 bit (for free), although it probably won't make any difference for what I use it for (just planetary imaging with my ZWO ASI 462 Camera). It has created a new version 4.1 Shortcut, but as you say, I can still use the previous 4.0 version, or even for that matter the earlier 3.2. John

I prefer 65-75 degree (including17.5 mm Morpheus) eyepieces to 80 degree plus eyepieces for low power rich field viewing, and in addition they are not so big, bulky and heavy John

I just opened my existing Sharpcap, and it gave me the option of downloading version 4.0.9538, I just however have the free version, so it looks like v4.1 11137, is a more recent one which you can buy. John

Is that Sharpcap 4.0.9538, I've just downloaded the update from Sharcap 4.0 John

I don't think that the 24mm ES 82 degrees is a lot lighter than the 30mm. It was partly due to the weight that I sold my ES 24mm and replaced it with a 24mm Panoptic, also because the 24mm Panoptic is parfocal with my Type 6 Naglers. John

Based on the optimum focal ratio being 3x the pixel size, the optimal focal ratio would be around f9, so at 750mm focal length you will be UNDER rather than oversampled with both the 6in and 8in telescopes, more so with the 8in if they have the same focal length. You haven't stated whether you are talking about planetary or deep sky imaging, for deep sky imaging what is more important is being able to fit the desired object in the available field of view. For planetary imaging the theoretical optimum with both scopes would be achieved with about a 2x Barlow, but with a native focal length of just 750mm, you might find the resultant images a bit on the small size, and find a 3-4x Barlow gives more pleasing results. I think some people get too hung up about what should be the optimal focal ratio, and it might be worth doing a bit of experimenting to see what gives the best results. Some planetary imagers get excellent results with focal ratios as long as f20 or even f25. John

Continuous rain here in Dronfield John

Here's a couple of Jupiter images from last year before and after enlargement by 2x in Nero AI Image Upscaler

Agree, the ZWO 224MC is designed mainly for planetary imaging due to its small sensor size, which gives a relatively small field of view. John

Has anybody tried or experimented with the above software, after receiving an email from Nero, I decided to try a 1 year subscription at the offer price of £21.50. Although not a dedicated program for planetary imaging unlike Registax for example, after giving a try, it does appear to be a simple and fairly effective method of enlarging (up to 4x) and sharpening planetary images that have already been processed. If you follow the advice of those who insist that you should aim for a focal ratio of no more than 3x (or under good viewing conditions 5x) the pixel size of your planetary camera, depending on the focal length of your telescope, you can end up with a image size which is far too small to be pleasing. Of course you can do some image enlargement in programs such as Registax, Photoshop, and GIMP, but it can be a fiddly and lengthy procedure. Nero AI Image Upscaler appears to be a quick and simple method of enlarging, and sharpening to a certain extent, images which are less than pleasing due to their small size, and more importantly it does enlarge the size of the saved image, rather than just the size the image appears to be when you post it. Attach for information a before and after image of Saturn, taken through my Esprit 150 on 04.09.23 (using a 2.5x Powermate and processed in AutoStakkert and Registax), the latter image was enlarged 2x and sharpened in Nero AI Image Upscaler. John

It's a bad practice, which results in polluting run-off into the local rivers, and the water companies have to spend more money treating water before it can go into supply. Yorkshire Water have banned it where they own the land in question. In addition, it reduces the ability of the peat to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. John

I find the Explore Scientific 50mm finders to be much better quality than the Skywatcher or Celeston ones, I have an Explore Scientific 8x50 (same as yours I think) mounted on my Esprit 150, but using the Skywatcher mounting bracket. John

Not impressed with my dealings with Astro Trails so far compared to Astro Eclipse. Received my final invoice a few days ago, and they want to charge us an extortionate price of £85 per person each way (making a total of £340 for 2 persons) for the transfers from the airport to the hotel in Mexico City, which apparently is only 12km away, and regardless of how many people on the trip are arriving on the same British Airways flight (BA 243 arriving in Mexico City at 19.45). Originally I understood that this price was based on just 2 people in a taxi, and that the price per person would be less if they could they arrange shared transport. In any event £170 for a 12km taxi journey seems outrageous, with Astro Eclipse ALL transfers were included. Is there anybody else on this trip that is arriving via flight BA243 on 4 April, it so what arrangements have you made for the transfers, if you haven't arranged anything maybe we could look into sharing a taxi. John

We have booked with Astro Trails to see the eclipse from Mexico, originally we were planning to view it from near the Niagara Falls, followed by an Amtrak rail tip across the USA, ending up in and flying back from San Fransisco, but unfortunately Astro Trails cancelled this particular trip due to lack of interest, so viewing the eclipse from Mexico instead. John

I would be a bit put off by the weight of the Pentax, almost as much as the ES 24mm 82 deg eyepiece which I sold partly for that reason. I actually weighed the LVW on my kitchen scales (which may not be that accurate) at 484g, also the Pentax is a bit more expensive at £379, compared to £315 for the LVW at Harrison Telescopes. John

Got the first chance last night to compare the 42mm LVW with my other 2in Wide Field Eyepieces last night, the 30mm StellaLyra UFF, 36mm Baader Aspheric, and Meade 56mm Super Plossl. Conditions were not good however due to haze and low cloud. Looking at the Pleiades through my Esprit 150, I found the 42mm LVW gave sharper images than the 36mm Aspheric, and there was less falling off in image quality towards the edge of the field, but it was by no means perfect, and nowhere near as good as the 30mm UFF or for that matter the 56mm Plossl, although in the case of the latter, it only has a 52 degree APFOV, compared to the approx 70 degrees of the other three, so can't really made a comparison. On the plus side, though I found the LVW did not suffer from any 'black-outs' at all, which some observers have reported. I will agree though that the 30mm UFF stands out as an outstanding eyepiece both in terms of quality, and value for money. The 56mm Plossl is one of the original 5 element made in Japan 'Smoothside' Plossls (similar in design I think to the current Masuyama eyepieces that FLO sell), and has massive eye-relief, making it necessary to position the eye about 2in away, which is awkward with these eyepieces not having rubber eye guards, and I wondered whether it is possible to buy something to fit. A 56mm eyepiece is really too low a power even for an f7 instrument, but I still find it useful for extra wide field views, and will probably keep it (I've had it over 30 years), but probably sell the 36mm Aspheric. I would be interested to know how the 42mm LVW compares to the 41mm Tele Vue Panoptic, I don't know whether anybody has done a comparison, I would expect the Panoptic to be superior, but is nearly twice the price, and about twice the weight, and I really don't like very big heavy eyepieces, due to my fork mount (on which Esprit is piggybacked) being very balance sensitive, and it is not possible to lock the dec axis. Partly for this reason I decided to sell both my 20mm Type 2 Nagler, and ES 24mm 82 deg eyepieces, replacing the latter with a much lighter 24mm 1.25in Panoptic. For comfortable wide field viewing, I generally prefer approx 70 APFOV eyepieces to those with 80 degrees plus. John

I've not been able to spot any of the moons of Uranus either, I understand that they are harder to spot than Neptune's Triton. John

If it ends up brighter than predicted at perihelion, it might be visible during the total eclipse of the sun on April 8 next year (which we are viewing from Mexico with Astro Trails). At the predicted 4.5 magnitude, it would be too faint to be seen with the naked eye during a totally eclipsed sun (which is rather brighter than a full moon), but if it is 2 magnitudes brighter than this it should be visible. John

I've never been able to view Triton visually even through my 14in Newtonian (although have picked it up in a photo), I put this down to a combination of light pollution (Bortle 5 in my location), and my deteriorating eyesight. John

The 42mm Vixen LVW from Harrison Telescopes finally arrived today via DHL (took nearly a week to come), and they are still indicating that stock is available. At first sight it is quite an impressive and well constructed eyepiece, and according the my kitchen scales (which may not be very accurate) it is lighter than advertised at just 484g, definitely lighter than my 30mm UFF (570g), but heavier than my 36 mm Aspheric (400g). Holding the eyepiece up to the light, the APFOV appears larger than the advertised 65 degrees, similar to my 30mm UFF (70 degrees), and my 36mm Aspheric (72 degrees) and noticeably wider than my 24 mm Panoptic (68 degrees) I am now waiting for some clear nights to to see how it performs, in particular compare it with my 30mm UFF, 36mm Aspheric, and 56mm Plossl. In particular I am expecting significantly better edge performance compared to my 36mm Aspheric plus a slightly wider field of view, otherwise I will have made a fairly expensive mistake. John

Would that be the case however, if the Tak was mounted on a Skywactcher AZ-EQ5 using the following:- https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-other-accessories/takahashi-tkp71423-dove-tail-male-for-mewlon-210.html One review suggested that it wasn't an ideal solution, and works out more expensive than the StellasLyra tube rings when you add on the cost of the Takahashi clamshell John

The 6.4mm refers to the focal length of the eyepiece, although traditionally short focal length eyepieces had very small eye lenses. The situation is somewhat different now however, as some short focal length eyepieces, such as the Baader Morpheus range, now have relatively large diameter eye lens, although as you intimated at a price. John

I actually have a Nadira folding chair now which I purchased from Rother Valley Optics, its not ideal but it does fold up small. I also have some steps on wheels, on which I place my laptop when doing astro-photography, I just couldn't wheel them around the shed with the original bulky observing chair in place. John

It was made by a carpenter friend some years ago, based on a design in a old Patrick Moore book, but I don't use it now as its rather bulky. John