paulastro

I love the 8.5 inch f12.5 (I think) achromat that Peter Drew has up at TAC. Peter built the tube, mount and housing and it's excellent. Mind you, it would never fit in my garden! .

What a cracking film, I'm looking forward to the sequel - 'The Return of the Haunting Squeak' perhaps? I must admit, I was surprised at how good the quality is in terms of sharpness and exposure.

PS I don't know if the DL is over the recommended load of the DL, I'll weigh my scope when I have the chance. What is the max recommended load for the AZ5?

If it was the DL Mike I humbly apologise - but it would be worrying if it was at would mean there is something very wrong somewhere and you're unlikely to be the only one who's mount is affected. (when loading it on a par with the weight of the DL or more)

Sorry to hear that Mike. If you recall, it did start to squeak a little toward the end of my visit, though I don't recall if it was in altaz or altitude.

Thanks Dave. Yes, that's quite right, no safety screw. It's a shame as I can't think it would have added to the cost much to have included one. Of course, not difficult if you have the skill and necessary tool, but many people don't - including me!

Yes, at last I managed to get around to Mikes and have a play with the DL and the AZ5, also taking my AZ4 round for comparison. The AZ5 looks very striking and the 'sculpting' of the fork which to me was reminiscent of an art deco design, very elegant. It is obvious, as shown in one of Mike's previous posts in this thread that overall the AZ4 certainly looks more robust, and I felt this was certainly reflected in the sturdiness. In my opinion, the DL on the AZ4 was clearly less prone to vibration than the DC was on the AZ5 - in any position. The AZ5 always seemed to resonate more to me than the AZ4 after being tapped, though as Mike said the time for both to come to rest was about the same. The smoothness of movement in the two mounts seemed a tad better on the AZ4 to me, but this may be due to the fact that having to adjust the two screws on the AZ5 to obtain the smoothest adjustment was a little fussy. With the AZ4 the adjustment seems much easier to obtain and more intuitive in operation - it's certainly quicker. The slow motions seem to work well, though are clearly not as smooth and positive as on both Mike's and my own GP mounts - though at the price point of the AZ5 this was no surprise. The GP has extremely smooth slow motions. Mike mentioned the angle of the slow motion in azimuth, and I'm afraid for me this would be a deal breaker if I wanted to use the AZ5 with the DL. I couldn't reach the knob and a floppy wouldn't have been any help either. It can be done of course if I stood round the left of the mount facing the tube, but I like to stand at the end of the tube looking along the tube. If you move to the side it affects the orientation of the image of course. There is only one knob to hold the tube in place which worried me a bit as I like to have a second one as a back up, the DL is noticeably heavier than the DC and if you ever forgot to tighten the single knob the scope wouldn't stay on the mount for too long! If I had one I'd have to have it drilled to take another knob. This all sounds rather negative but it's not meant to me. I liked the AZ5 alot, and if I had a DC I would certainly consider it. It would be great with my Equinox 80 (I could reach the slow motion knobs!) but there wouldn't be any advantage to me using the DL with it if I can't use the slow motion facility, in addition to the AZ4's extra stability. Thanks for letting me come round and try it out Mike - can I please come round again one clear night with my Equinox?

Mike you said ' Then, if my friend paulastro can be coaxed into it, I'll try his DL on the AZ5 to see if the extra length of tube makes any noticeable difference. ' Well, ok Mike, I'll come - just try and keep my away, . I'll arrange to come over early next week after I get back from Scotland on Sunday. Good pics and review Mike.

Mike, can I borrow yours for a few months to give it a good test and see if it's suitable for me? Of course, I''d let you keep it for a week or two before I 'borrow' it! You may not believe this, but I lent a good friend of mine a pair of orthos, and didn't get them back until four years had passed.

Piero, I have the DL (as you can probably see ) and have used mikeDnight's DC. Mike, I'm sure, will probably post some useful info on the DC when he reads your post . Just a few points. Mike's DC has the 2inch adapter, which does what it's supposed to. I'm not sure if you'll have focusing difficulties with it and the different eyepieces you mention, but the focus travel of the DC is very short and I would choose the DF over the DC for that reason alone. Re the choice between the tube clamp and rings, personally I'd go for the clamp anytime. I think it wonderful, and it's very easy to rotate it within the clamp, and re-balance the scope by sliding it through the ring. It can be done quickly and easily and it is very easy to tighten the bolt which is large and easy to grip. In my view the Tak clamp is FAR superior to any tube rings I have ever used. Mike has the micro focuser and it works well, but I wouldn't buy it!! The reason is, there is an alternative that is far cheaper. I was looking for a good prism diagonal and bought the Baader T2 prism diagonal which comes packaged with a 1.25 nose piece (2 inch available as an extra for versatily). At the other end it comes with a 1.25 eyepiece holder with compression fitting with three screws AND a helical focuser built in as well! I didn't buy it for the helical focuser but it really is excellent in use as is the diagonal as well - with the added advantage of the T2 fitting and the versatility it brings. I actually prefer the helical to the Tak micro focuser and the price for the whole thing - £106. A bargain which ever way you look at it in my view! http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-prism-diagonal-t-2-90-with-focusing-eyepiece-holder-and-125-nosepiece.html I'm sure you'll be really delighted with any of these two scopes Piero, so it's a win-win situation in my view. Regards, Paul

Thanks Garry. The Tak prism is a good one, especially as you found a used one. I opted for the Baader T2 because I really don't like the rotating ring you have to tighten to keep an eyepiece in position with the Tak. I felt the same about the one that is on the scope to start with and quickly replaced it and the tubes it's attached to with a 2 inch fitting. I still have it, but it won't be used again! . I've also bought a 2 inch T2 fitting nose piece for the Baader prism. Much more secure than 1.25 fitting when I'm using my binoviewer with two Baader Mk111s on board. I hope you have some good clear skies to put your scope through its paces soon.

Oh yes, I forgot Garry. If you want a fine focus and don't want to shell out around £250 for the Tak add on bit, you could always buy one of these: http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-prism-diagonal-t-2-90-with-focusing-eyepiece-holder-and-125-nosepiece.html I bought one recently as I just wanted the prism diagonal but iit was cheaper to buy it as a set like this than just buying the prism housing only and adding the T2 fittings of your choice. I didn't particularly want the helical focuser, but it works superbly well. If I'd known it was this good before I'd have bought it just for the fine focus facility. The prism diagonal itself is really good too and I much prefer it to my 1.25 TVue Dielectric mirror diagonal I sold to part fund it.

What an excellent choice Garry, and I'm not even a little tiny bit biased . If you don't have clear skies for a bit at night, set it up on a sunny day and point it at anything with fine detail on it;, a telegraph pole, a fence (anything with fine-grained wood), an electricity pylon, roofs with moss and lichen, any foliage against the blue sky, insects caught in a spiders web - any object with oodles of detail. You'll be blow away. I know this is fairly sad but MikeDnight and myself were doing this yesterday afternoon with the DC and the DL, outstanding detail and very enjoyable! Of course, it'll be pretty good on the night sky too .

I hope it comes before you go on holiday!

Gosh, that's a real tease Garry - can't wait to find out what it is .

Good one Mike, in fact I think it's about time I got my copy off the shelf and re-read it again for the umpteenth time. Thanks for the prompt. Sorry to mention it (not really!), but I think you meant 'up-lifting' rather than 'up-building'.

I've enjoyed following this thread, thanks for initiating it Jules. Ah, all this talk about the ED120 is making me feel nostalgic. In the 120ED's two incarnations (three if you include the original 'champagne' coloured variety. it's a scope I've had several of and enjoyed all of them - for the reasons well documented by colleagues already in this thread. Like Peter, I've used most types and sizes over many years - though not quite so many years as Peter . Over the eons I have been drawn to a few scopes that quite irrationally I have developed a deep affection for - and owned more than one of all of them, in one case at least five!! If I had to explain this to anyone, it would take quite some doing . For the record the scope in question, not in particular order are: The SW ED120 of course! Any fluorite doublet four inch refractor. The classic 6 inch f8 Newtonian, including the Dob variety. The Celestron C5+ SC on it's wonderful table top, DC powered, equatorial mount. The Megrez 90 refractor. (FPL 53 double lens) The SW Equinox 80mm - never owned any other versions of this, the Equinox is far more refined . I currently use an Equinox 80 and a Takahashi FC 100 DL and love them both dearly. Would I ever part with either of them, I doubt it, and if I do I hope a close friend takes me to see the men in white coats! Would I ever buy any of the telescopes yet off my list again, ha ha, I'd certainly not rule it out . I'm slightly troubled as Jules' thread has made me have visions of a nice Equinox ED120 with a matching shiny black Moonlite focuser, so thanks for that Jules I would say, I have an advantage in that I can have use of the telescopes up at The Astronomy Centre (Pete's Place) so I don't have to pine over big scopes. Scopes do tend to come and go, but is there anything permanent is this wonderful hobby? For me, there certainly is. All the many wonderful fellow observers I have observed with over the years and indeed still do of course. Yes, some of them are no longer with us, but the memories of all of them, past and present, will be be with me forever.

This is the Takahashi FC 100 DL on my GP mount, the ex-demo version, with 'DEMO' on the label where the serial number usually is. (I think Mike previously posted a pic of this)Interestingly, it also has the wrong writing on the ring around the lens - it's the ring with the focal length and focal ratio of the f7.4 version rather than the f9 version. Perhaps when this one was turned out they hadn't yet produced the ring for the f9 version - or someone put on the wrong one! . The diagonal is the WO 2inch right-way-round 90 degree version which I like to sweep with at low power.

Fabulous photo, who took it?

Doesn't it look nice, and blue skies too in Lancashire!

I quite agree Jules. I've just retrieved mine from a very good friend down south, where I fostered it out for two years. It's nice to have it home.

Thanks for the clarification re the Baader focuser and the Moonlite flange issue Andrew - I was a bit slow on the uptake there for a moment

That looks cool, you should go into production

Andrew, would I be correct in thinking that the Baader Newtonian flange would be more easily available and perhaps cheaper?

Many thanks Andrew, that's very useful. Mind you, orange?! A nice dark metalic red would be nice! I may pluck up the courage and ring FLO and ask the price - likely to be the biggest stumbling block. Mind you, I can always save up! . Thanks again Andrew. Regards, Paul