johnturley

On 01/11/2023 at 00:01, Higgs_Bozon said:

I can't get it to focus no matter what, I'm not using a star diagonal right now, is that why? I'm using a 10mm eyepiece btw....

You might need an extension tube if you are not using a star diagonal, most refractors sold these days require an extension tube to reach focus without a diagonal.

John 

28 minutes ago, Kon said:

Why not use as!3? I have never used Registax for stacking. If you must, then uninstall and reinstall? I am a Mac user so that's as far my pc advice will go.

I used to use Registax for both stacking and processing, but when I tried AutoStakkert I found that it gave better results, and also much shorter stacking time (about 3 minutes compared to 20 minutes), but I still use Registax for processing.

John 

5 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

Which length of USB3 cable do you use John? From the camera to laptop and still maintain a respectable frame rate.

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

John 

11 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

You are using SharpCap v4.0 then, which I suspect will only update to newer versions of v4.0. There is a new v4.1 version which has quite a few new and useful features. You can download v4.1 and use it for free just like v4.0. If you download and install v4.1 it will use the same configuration that you have setup for v4.0 but will leave the v4.0 version intact so that you can still run either version.

 

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 

37 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

 

Personally I find my vision is best when I'm looking straight on through the eyepiece and I struggle a bit when swivelled, so for me 68 degrees is enough.

 

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 

53 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

The Sharpcap I just bought is version v4.1 11137. Which is the most recent?

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

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

@bosun21 The latest version of SharpCap, released a couple of days ago, now includes a built in plate solver, meaning that you don't need to download a third party tool and all of its data. I've just downloaded it and so haven't tried it yet, but the information online suggests it is faster and easier to use the the third party tools.

 

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

John 

16 hours ago, lee g said:

 

The 30mm 82 degree is a bit heavy for the f5 refractor 

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  

On 22/10/2023 at 05:17, MichaelBibby said:

 

Obviously there are some variables to consider, like the pixel size of the camera and the seeing conditions. In my case I am using the 585 sensor with a pixel size of 2.9um which will be oversampled at 750mm. Will the difference in resolution only be noticeable in the very best seeing conditions, or would it be noticeable in average seeing conditions?



 

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  

20 minutes ago, John said:

I was hoping for the same but such hopes are fading now. Earlier I got some nice views of Saturn despite thin cloud. Now nothing at all is showing through 😒

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

1 minute ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

Depends what you want to image as deep sky objects vary considerably in size.  You should check what actual field of view you get with various combinations and setup accordingly.  

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

1 hour ago, globular said:

Have you considered the Pentax XW40?
It's 700g so is heavier than the LVW's 550g - but not by 'that much'. And there are none of the distortions and varying magnification described by Michael in the LVW - and it's the same price.  I love mine. 

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

11 minutes ago, John said:

Sorry that you have not been able to spot Triton as yet John.

My skies are Bortle 5-ish. I have seen it quite often with my 12 inch dob and a few times with my 130mm refractor. I'd like to do it with the ED120 though, for the challenge mostly 🙄

My 12 inch dob showed me Uranus's moons Oberon and Titania which are a touch fainter than Triton. I could not spot Phobos or Deimos at the last martian opposition though. Those little worlds do move around the red planet fast through - windows of good elongation are rather short in duration !

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 

52 minutes ago, John said:

Didn't get Triton. By the time I had finished with Saturn I could see that the sky was loosing transparency. I found Neptune but by then nothing fainter than around magnitude 12 could be seen with the ED120. Another half an hour later and only the brighter constellation stars were visible to the naked eye 🙄

Next time maybe 🙂

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  

On 29/09/2023 at 16:07, johnturley said:

Just received notifications from Harrison Telescopes, that they have now shipped the 42mm Vixen LVW.

Although their website showed that this eyepiece was available, I did have my doubts as to whether they would be able to supply one, as Vixen ceased production some time ago, none of my 'usual' retailers were listing it, and it does state on their website that this product comes direct from their supplier. In fact its still showing up as available in case anyone else had thoughts about getting one.

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 

41 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I tried rings. Once. Stick with the Tak clamshells 😊

Tak know what they are doing.

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 

21 minutes ago, SkyPhil said:

Hello

I'm looking at eyepieces for greater magnification. Does,for instance, 6.4mm refer to the diameter of the eyepiece lens. I wouldn't look forward to trying to squint my pupil through something the size of a pea.

Or is there a way of getting the same magnification with a larger lens (guessing costs for up of course)

Thanks for insights

Phil

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