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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

StarSteve

Members
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About StarSteve

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Could it simply have to do with some pattern you aren't aware of? If I understand it correctly dew happens when the temperature goes down since colder air can't hold on to as much moisture as warmer air, so the surplus moisture condense. So perhaps it has to do with your observing habits? If you aren't out observing when the temperature drops (for example if you tend to observe later in the night) then it would make sense that you have less of a dew problem. Just an idea. Steve
  2. Fair enough, but you still have a 16" dob to lug around for what has in effect become a 170mm F/11. Which is fine if you want both, but not if you don't. So I think it's still relevant to consider what one is looking at.
  3. Watches.... hm... that does ring a bell... damn this memory of mine... Ah, I got it! Aren't those the things people used to wear on their wrists before smartphones were invented? Yes, I remember them from my childhood! Steve
  4. And naturally: "Of course, a slower scope introduces its own restrictions" shoudl obviously be: "Of course, a faster scope introduces its own restrictions" Sorry my brain locked up there.
  5. I can't edit so I'll correct my typo here: "On the other hand, for DSO and such you want wide views so the slower the better." should of course be: "On the other hand, for DSO and such you want wide views so the faster the better."
  6. The thread so far is very focused on height above ground (stepladders or not). I will add a different perspective, namely what you are most interested in looking at! If you are a "solar system bum" and focus on planets and such then you want a slow scope, the longer the better, just get a bigger step ladder. On the other hand, for DSO and such you want wide views so the slower the better. Of course, a slower scope introduces its own restrictions (harsh demands on eyepices, collimation, coma control and so on). Generally though, I'd say build a scope that fits your particular interests, not you height above ground. Of course, if you are an omnivore interested in everything then you want the scope to reflect that as well (avoid and F/4 configuration for example). Building your own scope is an opportunity to get one tailored to your needs, both in terms of optics and ergonomics. By all means use the opportunity to the max, standard aperture ratios are available in spades at your nearest astro vendor so don't be afraid to be radical. HTH Steve
  7. Yes, ergonomics is of course personal, which is why you often see dob owners with their own particular setup of finder aids, and a right angled finder is more or less a must-buy (which I believe is the reason almost all dobs come with straight-through finders, guaranteed after-sales). For viewing position, many use "piano chairs" or something like that. A friend of mine put her 6" dob on a low table instead, so she can stand straight and observe. Steve
  8. Actually, a 2.3mm in a 130p (130/650) is 283x. But yes it is too much for that scope. Also, if the 130p sits on an EQ2 (what they are usually sold with) then even the 5mm is going to be next to useless. Forget seeing, the mount is the limiting factor. I know I used to own one of those things. If you have it on a more stable mount then you'll be fine with the 5. Steve
  9. Um... after some head-scratching, I don't think I believe the 52 deg celestron claims because that would be more than what fits in the 1.25" barrel. Pretty sure 32mm and 50 deg is all you can have.
  10. Actually on Celestrons site it is listed as 52 deg...
  11. Um, yes but not the celestron omni, if the specs I read are correct, it's listed as 44 AFOV. I think you need 50 to give the full 1.25" field. Steve
  12. That question got lost in the thread's chatter so far. But I agree with this. I have never had any problem with dob focuser/eyepiece positions. Quite the contrary, its GEM that gives me rotational problems. Steve
  13. Hm.. Astronomik doesn't look that broad reach to me though. Looks identical to the Baader, goes slightly higher than the Orion and a little bit more broadband than the Lumicon. Unless I am misreading the diagrams. The Denkmeier is broader though, including above 650nm and below 410nm or so. Steve
  14. I see. So the camera filters are a bit generous with what they cut and essentially they are replaced with a filter that only does what it's supposed to. Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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