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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by jetstream

  1. 1 hour ago, Stu said:

    I’m beginning to wonder why I have all this lovely, and expensive kit! Since they were launched, I was sure I would buy a Heritage 150p, and sure enough, one turned up on my doorstep today and I’m very impressed with it after having first light tonight.

    I was a little concerned as a hole had been punched right through the outer and inner boxes, but fortunately there was no damage to the scope.

    I never intended to use it on the dob Mount, so have popped it straight on to my Ercole and Gitzo. I did the plumber’s tape mod on the focuser this afternoon and it is now smooth and with just the right amount of resistance, no wobble. I will make a shroud for it once I get hold of some hobby foam.

    I fitted the RDF which is a relatively cheap, plastic affair but which works very well and was easy to fit and align.

    So, to the observing. I haven’t troubled the standard eyepieces yet, although it would be interesting to see how they perform. I used a 24mm Panoptic as a finder/low power giving x32 Mag and a 2.2 degree field of view. My Nag zoom was the high power giving x125 to x250. A quick star test showed the collimation to be slightly off, a quick tweak of the primary nailed that pretty easily though.

    First up was Jupiter. GRS visible easily straight away, along with plenty of detail in the bands. Most impressive I must say, an excellent view. Light scatter seemed very well controlled, diffraction spikes were not intrusive, or really noticeable, and as said, the detail visible was well beyond just the two equatorial bands.

    Saturn next, nice again although the Cassini division was not really showing, just the variation in brightness of the different ring sections and some surface banding.

    I was hoping for some lunar views, but it was unfortunately hiding behind some trees and although I could get a clear view with my eye, it was not possible to get the scope on it.

    I think skipped around various familiar targets to see how I got on.

    M13, good view, stars resolving quite deep into the core, helped by averted vision. Under a darker sky I reckon the propeller would show up as there were strong hints even with the Moon lighting things up.

    M92, significantly smaller and less detail visible, at least I found it! It has been known for me to fail miserably on this one!

    M57, lovely oval ring shape with gently light centre.

    NGC457, an old favourite, easy target but well shown.

    Epsilon Lyra, the Double Double. I hoped this would be good given my experience with the 130p and I wasn’t disappointed. It split at the 6mm setting, but at higher settings the view was very nice indeed. Lovely bullseye stars with a single diffraction ring and clear dark separation. A promising sign!

    Iota Cass, beautiful triple! Resolved cleanly at around x150 I guess, with really clean star shapes.

    Delta Cygni needed a bit more power, but again was split very cleanly and clearly, the fainter secondary pin sharp.

    Pi Aquilae, easy innit! Showed as two bullseyes, clean split.

    Albireo, nuff said, beautiful colours.

    Polaris was easy, pin point secondary again, and well controlled primary.

    Finally I thought I would try Zeta Herc, which had been my nemesis for years and only relatively recently in a few scopes, namely the Mewlon, 8” f8 and also my Tak and Vixen. Familiarity really helps here and I’m sure I may have been seeing it before, but just didn’t know what I was looking. Ramping up the power and with careful focusing I got it! A brightening on the first diffraction ring, consistently in the right place and resolving into a star every now and then with the better seeing. Checking the position in SkySafari showed it in exactly the same position, so a definite split for me.

    Last target was Mars, as it had become visible in a decent gap in the cloud. The polar cap was clear, as were some dark markings. x200 worked in well giving a decent image scale and maintaining quality.

    That’s all for now, I will write up something more later about the scope itself, likely after the  weekend more as there will be plenty of others interested in buying these I guess. This is an excellent piece of kit; great value but also optically very capable and rewarding to use.





    Excellent Stu! I must get one.

    • Like 2

  2. 35 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

    What could that be and why does it happen?


    Re :scatter -have you checked your eyes for scatter on a street lamp at night? If I remember I looked through eyepieces from the bottom, our eye scatter is shocking showing under certain conditions.

    The dark spot would imply a mismatch between your eye and exit pupil of the scope/eyepiece I think?

  3. 16 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

    Between the F/8 and F/5 there is also F/6 model:


    Less coma, less harsh on eyepieces, yet capable of wider field views (has 2" focuser as well and decent size secondary). Would be well suited on AZ4 as mentioned above.

    f6 is a nice place to be IMHO.

    • Like 1

  4. Not sure if others have the same experience- I find that the differences between eyepieces show up under the best of seeing- at a minimum of Pickering 7. Obviously some of the differences show up at other times ie edge aberrations and distortions but the difference in on axis sharpness reveals itself ^^.

    I have had views of Saturn that rival some of the best images (most details) using the sorted out eyepieces.

  5. 21 minutes ago, Munkymanmatt said:

    Could anyone either recommend either of these over the other, or any suitable alternatives? I can find either of these EPs online for about £50-60 brand new.

    I have the 18mm BCO,10mm and 6mm. The 6mm is my least favourite. If it were me I'd barlow the excellent 10mm BCO. It might be interesting to see if there is any difference in seeing faint objects between the 9mm Meade and the 10BCO.

    • Like 2

  6. For a bit of a reference my TSA120 will go 375x mag + under Pickering 8 and the 15" over 700x. The TSA 120 goes much more but I'm limited by my lowest focal length EP, 2.4mm.

    For a start a nice 7mm-8mm eyepiece will give you a very useable 150x to 170x mag in your XT8. Your scope will support much higher mag if well collimated and under good seeing.

    Vixen SLV?- nice eye relief with excellent optics?

    • Like 3

  7. 18 hours ago, PaulM said:

    ive just ordered a 6mm eyepiece i have a 4mm which doesnt work well and an 8mm which is fine so hoping a 6mm gives me closer views of Saturn and Jupiter

    Your 1650mm fl scope will give 412x mag with a 4mm eyepiece. This is quite a bit for Jupiter even with good seeing, reasonable on Saturn and Mars under vg seeing. The 350mm of aperture can be affected by sub par seeing a fair bit.

    In general I use about 150x mag as a default for the planets regardless of seeing and aperture. If I cant observe using this mag I pack it in.

  8. 11 hours ago, Shaun Sr said:

    yes i can see the milky way streaming accross the sky but i never paid any attention to it to notice a southern split  i have to get away from the city to do that but thats a 20 min drive to darkness  and thanks for pointing out televue as filter  i go with them however i just bought a 14mm es100

    Just a note on the eyepiece selection for the filter- as a general guideline if we take the focal length of the eyepiece and divide it by the 8" Edges f ratio (f10) we get a number- and this number should be between 4 and 5 to allow an OIII or UHC filter to work. Not sure if you knew this.

    The ES 14 100 is a VG eyepiece and will be useful for high power DSO- have you seen the Eskimo nebula?

    I use a Vixen 42mm LVW but the 40mm ES 68 or the big TV 41mm Pan would work nicely with an OIII in your scope. Once set up eyepiece and filter wise I would point your scope at the Veil nebula in Cygnus from a dark site.

    • Like 1

  9. 1 hour ago, Shaun Sr said:

    i live in michigan i go outside of the small city i live in and sometimes in it the skys are dark for the most part the country is only a few miles city of 40k


    If you can see the Milky Way you will easily see spiral arms in M51 and possibly M101 if you are dark adapted. I'm up north of you in NW Ontario and find the eyepiece selection is crucial for seeing galaxies and nebula. The f10 Edge 8" will need something like a 42mm eyepiece to work properly with the excellent new Astronomik OIII or the Televue version of it, which is my preferred OIII.

    You are right on the money with the 31mm eyepiece for seeing galaxies in your scope, with a bit higher mag being good at times as well.

    The thing is- if skies are not dark seeing these objects will be unrewarding and difficult. Can you see the Milky Way and if so the southern large split in it?

    • Like 1

  10. 9 minutes ago, crazzy88ss said:

    Hi, newbie here.

    I have an Orion Skyquest 8XT 1200mm on a basic Dobsonian mount with 10, 20 and 25mm 1.25" eye pieces. 

    To get some additional magnification, would a barlow lens be the next purchase to make?  If so, what features should I look for?

    What about size of the eye pieces/barlow? The focuser will take 1.25" or 2" pieces.

    I'm generally looking at planets.

    How is your seeing ie steady skies?

  11. 2 hours ago, John said:

    I thought the central star was mag 15.3 ?

    I think the star is listed at 14.7-14.8 and might be variable a bit. When the effects of the bright nebulosity are taken into account I've seen "visual" magnitudes almost at 16 mag.

    from @SimonfromSussex 2016 thread and quoting Omeara"

    "Stephen O’Meara in his deep-sky companions “The Messier Objects” says: “many veteran skywatchers have estimated it be as bright as 14th magnitude (putting it within the range of a good 4-inch telescope under a dark sky). Yet Burnham notes that the star was fainter than a 16th magnitude when he looked at it in 1959 through the 40-inch reflector at Lowell Observatory"

    I feel that this star is much fainter than 14 mag and fainter visually than 14.8 mag. I have to wait for it to appear in the 15", in the 24" its there all the time. I also feel that seeing it with a 15" scope is an accomplishment- not to say that a bit smaller aperture won't work, but my 10" does not show it.

    I hope to hear about the Morpheus performance on this and if it shows it in a 16" scope or so then its right up there with Delos IMHO.


    • Like 1

  12. 10 hours ago, groot said:

    indeed. i'm really looking forward to using this one for a very long time. 

    You might be shocked at the lunar views this scope will give!

    Do you collimate with a chesire? If you ever need to get it recoated I'd only consider Ostahowski-and he likes to coat his own mirrors. He has a great coating service for others as well, but as we all know some mirrors can have issues getting re coated. His will not.

    My 15" with his mirrors is a super performer on everything.

  13. I find that the bright nebulosity in M57 makes the central star harder than the listed magnitude of 14.8. If aperture is a detriment due to seeing sensitivity, it I'm not sure why my 24" has such an easy time with it at higher mags than the 15".

    So-does the Morpheus show the central star in M57 using the 12.5"?- where from LA?

    • Like 1

  14. 1 minute ago, Don Pensack said:

    the focal length should yield a 1mm exit pupil or smaller, since high powers always yield the faintest stars.

    In theory this is correct but I notice that there is a sweet spot as far as mag goes and higher is not necessarily better. In my own un scientific, hillbilly testing I use the central star in M57 with my 15" for example.

    Yes, my scope is equalized and very well collimated. Not picking on TV here but an example of transmission for me is the 3-6 NZ- no central star compared to a "good" 5mm ortho.

    I agree that to truly evaluate transmission exacting methods should be used but I also believe that less than perfect methods reveal much as well. I also know that differences in transmission can be small and on paper might not be able to account for the observations...but...

  • Create New...

Important Information

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