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.

stargazine_ep28_banner.thumb.jpg.b94278254f44dd38f3f7ee896fe45525.jpg

makeyourself

New Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About makeyourself

  • Rank
    Vacuum
  1. Thanks for the additional info and sorry for the late reply, not been on here for a few days. I went for the Orion 9x50 non-illuminated version in the end. Was surprised at how big and heavy it was but it seems of stearn build quality and the image produced is fantastic. Glowjet, you were exactly right about the nuts on the existing studs interfering. So I removed them, took the screws out and replaced them with countersunk screws inserted from the top. That solved the problem and worked perfectly. I used this shoe which I would recommend if someone is looking to use existing holes on the telescope due to the fact it has 8mm wide rails for screws to fit into: http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/info-BC202.html
  2. Thanks for all the replies so far, if a commercialised shoe is not available for the Celestron then I would probably avoid that option since there is an alternative available. I would really prefer not to drill into the telescope if I can avoid it as I'd be worried about damaging it but would do so as a last resort. I have actually just checked to compare the fittings with a Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ that I also own and the finder scope fitting is almost identical to the Meade 4500. The studs are both 2 centimetres apart and the nuts are interchangeable so the studs must also be the same diameter. But for some reason if I try to switch finder scopes they won't quite fit, I'm presuming it's just because the 127EQ and 4500 are different diameters. But basically the 4500 would seem to have some kind of standard 2 stud fitting if that makes any sense at all! So I'm hoping that one of these types of brackets/shoes will fit without having to drill since they claim the bracket will cover all diameter telescopes. Please let me know if I'm not making sense since still finding this all a bit confusing! Here's a photo of the studs on the 4500: But anyway at the moment I'll be going for one of the Orions or the Skywatcher on the basis that I can use that bracket.
  3. The one with the widest reported field of view is actually the one with the smaller the aperture, the 6x30 Orion at 7 degrees. Compared to the 9x50s which are all 5-5.6 degrees. So I'm not sure which out of FOV and magnification would be more important, maybe 5 degrees is quite wide anyway? I found a shoe for the Orion ones and the Skywatcher that says it will fit Meade telescopes: http://www.scsastro.co.uk/catalogue/orion-dovetails-for-finderscopes.htm I also a found an equivalent to the Celestron which will fit the same shoe: http://www.scsastro.co.uk/catalogue/orion-9x50-illuminated-right-angle-ci-finder-scope-7020.htm But if I did decide to go with the Celestron, what type of shoe exactly would I need for that?
  4. Hi I've just got a Meade 4500 second hand and am having quite a bit of trouble with the finderscope due to having to put my head almost upside down to look through it which is causing headache and fatigue. I've been looking at right-angled finderscopes as a solution but as I'm quite inexperienced with telescope equipment I'm having trouble choosing. At the moment I only use the scope in my back garden where there is a fair amount of light pollution (I can only see stars of 3-4m with the naked eye). I've looked at reflex sights but I was thinking that, due to the light pollution and my inexperience, I could probably do with a magnified finderscope. So the ones that I'm considering so far are these: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/skywatcher-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html http://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/celestron-illuminated-right-angle-correct-image-finderscope.html http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/info_07211.html http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/info_07212.html Firstly I was wondering if somebody could tell me if any of these will actually fit a Meade 4500? Secondly considering the telescope that I will be using it with, am I better to go with a 9x50 or a 6x30, i.e. greater magnification or slightly greater FOV? Finally, something that's confusing me - it says the Celestron 9x50 has an apparent field of view of 5deg, surely this is a mistake?
  5. Thank you both for the friendly and informative replies and also Mr Q for going to trouble of reading the 127EQ manual! That has clarified things a lot. Yes basically, the polar axis is the most difficult to move and in any case will return to exactly the same place (unless you actually adjust it the proper way of course). The Dec axis actually locks fairly well but not completely. The RA axis moves the easiest when 'locked' but it does still allow for movements about the other axes alone whilst maintaining its place reasonably well. So it seems to be working properly which I'm glad of, will definitely be taking it out very soon and will no doubt be posting here again sometime!
  6. Hi I got this telescope as a Christmas present. Although its my first one I've been interested in astronomy for some time. It has a German equatorial mount and my query is regarding the 'lock knobs' on all three of the axes. I was wondering whether it should still be possible to move the telescope about a certain axis after tightening its lock knob. The knobs do seem to make it slightly more difficult to move but I was thinking that perhaps they shouldn't move at all, negating excessive force. So I'm not entirely sure the mount is doing what it should be although at the same time its difficult to believe that all three knobs are malfunctioning?!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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