paulastro

I too have the SkySafari 6 Pro, and I bought it at the 'sale' price of £19.99. I hesitated long and hard before spending so much (for me anyway!) on an app. For a fossil like me I hate to admit it, but more often than not I take it outside with me instead of a star atlas if I need any help to locate anything (it's on my phone) . For me it's now become invaluable, it's repaid the purchase price for me many times over. I use it a lot indoors as well for planning observing sessions, how sad is that!?

Hi Doug, I've had a AZ4 for years and used it on many scopes, including an 120ED and Equinox 120ED which is heavier of course. I strongly urge you to try it out for a while on the AZ4, on high and low powers, before committing yourself to buying aanother mount. It will be useable and you may find it's better than you think it might be. I have to say my AZ4 is very smooth, but I can't speak for every other example. I found the 120ED will work fine on the AZ4 for lower power, and indeed for planetary with a binoviewer on some occasions. In fact I often used it on the AZ4 even though I had heavier duty mounts available. It certainly will serve as a grab and go if you need to quickly set up, and even if you do get another mount, I'm sure at times you will find yourself using it on the AZ4. I took a 100ED f6.95 refractor (weight around 5 kilos or more loaded) and a David Levy 152mm f4.7 Mak-Newt (weighing 8kg) to Kelling along with my AZ4 and Ercole. I used the different scopes on both mounts at different times and had no problems. At home I frequently use the DL scope on the AZ4 if I am going out only for deep sky and general sweeping around - though I can use it for planetary with a binoviewer and two Baader Mk111 zooms I do prefer the Ercole for planetary. Of course, the Ercole is more steady, but the AZ4 doesn't inhibit what I can do if I do use it. In my view the AZ5 will not be suitable for use with the 120ED. It is no where as sturdy as the AZ4 and the azimuth slow motion is positioned in such a silly position you'll never be able to reach it if you use anywhere near a long a scope as the 120. Fine if you have only an 80mm refractor, small solar rig or a Mak 127, but good for little else in my opinion. I didn't keep the AZ5 I had long after I sold my Mak 127. The Skytee Mount will of course hold the 120ED more steadily, but is not a good mount if you want to carry it around very much, and you'll have to replace the two Vixen tube holders unless you want the scope to come adrift, most people end up replacing them. I had one for some time, and admit I'm biased - I really didn't like it very much, rather agricultural. So in summary Doug, as I said earlier on, I'd just use the AZ4 for a while, and then look around for a another mount if you feel a need. Even if you do need another mount, I'm pretty sure you'll be still using it for the 120 on some occasions. Also, if possible, if you identify something you're thinking of buying for the 120, try get the use of someone elses first to try your scope on. Best of luck.

This is a great little star atlas, easy to carry around and the spiral binding means it can be folded right over which is very useful. The pages are very good quality paper so it's quite robust. If I'm going to take a star atlas to the telescope with me, this is my first port of call. It also fits nicely it the bottom of my eyepiece bag . https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Telescopes-Pocket-Atlas/dp/1931559317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1535712699&sr=1-1&keywords=pocket+sky+atlas

Some 120ED owners might be secretly gloating as well - come on, own up, we know you are out there!

Don't know about the people you mention, but in some parts of Wales I believe they speak Welsh all the time, and quite right too!

In Welsh?

I know Es and I can't think of a better person to test anyone's scope. However, I can't help but think that offering a service to get any telescope tested by ES (or anyone else for that matter) is akin to sticking a notice on the listing saying ' this telescope is subject to poor quality control and we can't guarantee you'll get a good one unless it is tested'. Now, (before the hatchets come out! ) please don't misunderstand this. Certainly it is a good thing to offer this service by FLO, and I would certainly want Es to check my telescope if I was in the market for one. The trouble is this then creates an environment where any untested 150EDs will be mistrusted, their owners will probably feel they may have an inferior one (particularly if they don't feel confident to give it a good check themselves) and anyone selling a used 150ED will probably see its' price devalued and possibly difficult to sell on at all. The better outcome would be if SW can prove they have sorted any QC issues with this telescope and third party testing, by anyone, is unnecessary.

I feel it's a real shame that this much anticipated scope has come up so short in the two scopes John received, all be it for two very different reasons. Now everyone will be waiting to see how many of them have QC problems. Hopefully it will be only a few, but any more than this and SW's reputation make take some time to recover, at least as far as this telescope goes. ?

Aaarrggghhh, thanks for that John. That's even more temptation, the Moon has always been one of my favourites . I'll be out with the Contrast Booster again tonight, GRS transit at 23.26 BST and Io's shadow which leaves the disc at 23.14 BST.

Thanks for the id chaps, at least now I know which filter we are talking about in addition to the Contrast Booster . That's interesting, one vote for the Contrast Booster, one for the Neodymium and one for the two in combination. That's a dilemma for me. I've really no spare cash, but if I convince myself I would get some use for the Neodymium then I'd find the dosh somehow. As we all know, as far as the planets are concerned, every little advantage needs to be taken to eek out every drop of detail. I'm very tempted now, just to be sure. I'd really appreciate it if you can try the two together on Jupiter Kerry and post up your findings here. I'm very intrigued about the possibilities of stacking the two together. Hurry, please I beg you Kerry, before my finger gets drawn like a magnet to pressing the 'buy now' key on my computer! Any delay and it could be too late for me.

Is this the filter we are talking about? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction/baader-neodymium-filter.html

Many thanks for that, even more food for thought. What is the actual name of the filter we are talking about, is it the Baader Moon and Skyglow or Baader Neodymium?

Thanks John. I've never had or used a Baader Moon and Skyglow filter. If it's better than the Contrast Booster then it must be amazing. In what way was it better than the Contast Booster on Jupiter/

The bulk of this report in was posted by me in response to a post on Mars and I have re-posted it here in an edited form as I thought it may have some appeal to planetary observers who have not seen the original. There is a lot of other information on line and I'm apparently not the only one who is VERY impressed with how good this filter is for planets. It's by far the best filter I've ever used for planetary use, and I'd urge anyone who can get hold of one to try it out. As you will read - I've never previously been impressed by the use of colour filters for the planets. For me the Baader Contrast Booster is now an essential item of my planetary observing kit. I've had a set of colour filters for donkeys year and occasionally get them out, often at a Mars opposition, but the result is always the same to me. They never seem to show me anything I can't see without them. They make some features on Mars more obvious, but at a cost of and unacceptable colour cast (to my eyes) and a darkening of the image according to which filter it is of course. I hadn't tried them this year as the result is always the same for me. However, I thought I'd read up on which if any of the colour filters themselves might show some details of the dust clouds, at least it would be something to look at. I found nothing convincing enough to encourage me to dust off my colour filters again. I then looked in a draw of oddments to see what filters, other than colour filters, I had I might try. I found a Baader Contrast Booster which I'd forgotten about, never used it - it came with a scope I bought eons ago. I googled it and found it had rather a good reputation for being useful for planetary images and in particular some people seemed to think it was the bees-knees filter for Mars. Anyway I tried it a few mornings ago, and was quite taken with how it improved the sky contrast, quite considerably without dimming the image to any great extent at all. Also, I did glimpse indications of some albedo marking on Mars more frequent and certain than I have ever done without it. Also tried it on Saturn, a good image with the contrast particularly noticeable on the difference to the sky detail and the background stars/satellites I could see. The great thing for me is that it does not give a horrible colour wash to the images as colour filters do. I think it has a slight biased towards yellow, but I only really noticed it on the Moon, and it was nowhere as bad as using a yellow filter. The following evening the GRS transited the CM on Jupiter and wow, what a difference. The GRS itself was immediately easily discernible and clearly pink even in poor seeing periods and the belts and other detail were clearly well enhanced. Easily the best view of Jupiter I've has this apparition. If I'd know it was as good as this I'd have used it years ago. Anyway, I really just wanted to say to anyone that happens to have a Baader Contrast booster in their arsenal, to try it on Mars and other planets if you haven't already. To me at least, it was quite a revelation. If I'd tried one belonging to anyone else I'd have been straight on to FLO to buy one the next day. If you know someone who has one locally, pop round and try it and see what you think for yourself. I suspect when the dust clouds clear it will really show its usefulness even more. Worh having for Jupiter alone in my view. If anyone is wondering, I was using the filter with my ES David Levy Comet Hunter, a 152mm f4.8 Mak-Newt, binoviewer and two Baader MK111 zooms. This scope performs very well on the planets without the filter when the seeing plays ball. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/achromat-semi-apo-filters/baader-contrast-booster-filter.html

Good for you Mike, I only got a bill in the post . Still, I'm sure you'll let me try these eyepieces out .

You might say that Mike, I couldn't possibly comment . The worrying thing is that I think you are the sanest person you know too

I think Jim Fleck protesteth too much. He sounds like a man who is unsure if he is batting for the right side. Arguments thrive when facts are scarce. I know many people who favour reflectors, refractors and compound scopes, and yes even SCs - sorry Mike . All of these people have one thing in common, they are happy with the telescopes they favour, are unconcerned what people think of their choices and just get on with bombarding them with photons. They never feel the need to justify their choice, and certainly wouldn't dream about criticizing other people's choice on forums like this one. I think people tend to overlook a few things when jostling to convince people that they should favour the telescopes they favour themselves. 1 It is not true that any one telescope is the best choice for any particular object. There are many factors involved:, portable, grab and go, or observatory location, urban or rural setting, our age and fitness level, the depths of our pockets, 'serious' or casual observer, imager or visual etc etc etc....... 2 Many people don't necessarily buy a telescope only because it gives the best view of their favourite targets. People also buy particular telescopes because they actually enjoy using them - and by this I mean the aesthetic and practical side of manipulating their chosen telescope compared with using other types. 3 Many people like spending some time just looking at their telescopes and, as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 4 Many astronomers own and use a variety of telescopes and use them depending on observing circumstances and what they are observing. 5 There is no best telescope, the best telescope is the one that best meets the individual's needs. The person who is truly happy with their telescope(s) choice will not feel the need to constantly justify it, and cares nothing for what other people think, and don't lay awake at night worrying about that not everyone wants to use the same telescope that they use. They will be far too busy observing, when it's clear. The happiest bunnies are the quiet bunnies who just get on with it .

I think I'll be coming up to TAC a little more often than usual during next July Peter

Many thanks, 25585 - sorry don't know your name. The DL is a fine scope, I can't imagine a better four inch refractor for planetary and the Moon. I'm sure you'll be thrilled with it if you go ahead with the purchase.

Having to sell, part-ex my Tak 100 DL for financial reasons starting some months ago started a chain of events ending in my acquiring an Astro Tech 102ED 102mm f6.95 (709mm) from a fellow SGL member which I took in part exchange for a 120mm Equinox. I took it really to sell on, but it's so good I have decided to keep it. I even sold my 80mm Equinox to make way for it - and I'd had this scope for over five years. It was new in 2007 and I am the third owner, all of us SGL members. Astro Tech is the brand name for scopes made by Astronomics in the USA, and this one is fitted with a Feathertouch micro focuser fitted from new at the factory and made especially for this scope. The scope has excellent sharpness (not stretched at all at x200 in appropriate seeing, and used at x360 on one occasion - though this was pushing it in poor seeing) and though having a little more colour than the Equinox 80 it's not at all bothersome to me. You have to look for the colour, great in day and night time and a joy to use. The FT is fabulous, necessary in such a short focal length. It's also only 24 inch with the dew shield in the closed position, about 22 inches without the diagonal. My thanks to the two SGL members who were the custodians of this fine scope before me and who looked after it so well. The pics show it in my observatory, the last one with the scope with the dew shield folded in. The mount is a Vixen GP converted to Altaz by Peter Drew.

I was daft enough once to mount a SW 180 mm Mak on an AZ4. I hasten to add though that this was only to test it on Jupiter which was low in the sky at the time when there was a brief gap in the sky and I had nothing else close at hand .

Good to see you're looking after it, and I hope you have many opportunities to observe Mars with it. Happy New Year to you too, and to all other SGLers of course.

Mmm, funny how memory plays tricks on you. I could have sworn that it was your eye that was fogged up Mike I have to admit, when my wife drove over your eyepiece box you showed tremendous self control. I put this down to you being in shock .

What a truly fantastic bit of film. Thanks for posting it Mike, I really enjoyed it - I think I'll watch it many more times!