jetstream

There is no question that your 140mm has excellent optics as these sessions show. The 3D effect, along with a fast snap focus are 2 telltale signs of it IMHO. And then taking near 600x... that speaks for itself. Yes, please do Magnus- your reports are much appreciated! Gerry

I believe youre right John and with the high quality that widefields give the demand for these types of eyepieces is probably very small. I use them to observe for a while after starting with a widefield and then finish with a widefield after the "critical " observing. Some of us use them a lot though and I hope more are made.

Never heard of Buyee or Mercari. I think I should get out more (of the bush)!

This place is good?

One of the dumbest things Ive done is to assume the Vixen HR line would always be available. I should have bought them all.

😔

Excellent image and creativity! I love photography as well, espc Christmas "bokeh" shots and someday will up the level of equipment. Nikon is top notch, nice choice.

Hey Jeremy, old buddy, old pal, ol' friend o' mine!!!... I have a great 4mm University Optics 4mm!! trade ya, trade ya !!! 😔

The 3-6 NZ is a very nice, very handy and sharp eyepiece. I use one in the H130 and the fracs. Its small size is a great asset for what I use it for. Nice choice in getting one Ed. Your trusted friend is correct, there are eyepieces out there that are sharper than the excellent 3-6 NZ. To my eyes the transmission is a bit lower in the NZ, but this is ok for lunar/planetary and can be an asset depending on the scope. Whether or not it would be worth it to you depends on a few things. I use orthos in my big dobs and love them- for a little while and for certain things like PN's. The very narrow FOV is not for everyone and neither is the eye relief. The fracs love the likes of the Vixen HR... better ER, nice eyecup vs orthos or XO. The XO/HR/s are a bit- but noticeably sharper than Delos... and Delos are very sharp.They are also a bit sharper than the Docter which is sharper than the Delos. In reality -IMHO- the telescope optics can limit "eye piece" sharpness ie the scope should not limit the sharpness available, nor should the eyepieces. We should only be limited by seeing IMHO, as I was last night. If the telescope intended for use with an HR is not the limiting factor and you have reasonable seeing to utilize the extra sharpness owning one is worth it. You cant use one if you dont own one... I would recommend the 3.4mm HR to you, but make sure its a good one as @Don Pensack says there were issues with some.

Well, an unexpected clear sky as I was halfway done my evening walk had me high stepping it back home to get the VX10 ready. I had re painted the whole interior, blacked everything right out including the sec edges, spider, interior of focuser tube, flocked opposite the focuser ect. It is a high contrast scope. Even my EP adapters are painted flat black on the bottom. The optics are rated at 1/8PV and a high Strehl. The moon was lower than I like but the seeing appeared stable as the scope cooled- and yes it turned out vg. The Leica Aspheric zoom/VIP was first enlisted and provided nice cool down views. The views got so good around 240x that I ran to get the new Pentax 2.5XO and the 2.4 and 3.4 HR's. This is round one with the 2.5XO and is more impression than anything else. I used the fine ejecta around Atlas (?) as a test base. Obviously sharp in the LZ, very sharp in the 3.4mm at 352x and the fine ejecta remained extremely sharp - in spurts- in both the 2.5XO and 2.4HR. What struck me was the image brightness going from the 3.4mm to the 2.5XO- the 2.5XO remained very bright at .5mm exit pupil, and was a tad brighter than the 2.4mm HR to my eyes. The snap focus on both the 2.5XO and 2.4 HR was very fast, but there was a winner- the 2.5XO by a small but noticeable margin. Maybe this will change in another scope , I dont know. The TSA120 snap is so brutally fast with the 2.4HR that it is hard to imagine the XO could be any faster in this scope- time will tell. So the 10" and the 2.5 XO/2.4 HR did not limit me to 480x, but the seeing and local thermals did. I can tell right now, from one session that the 2.5mm XO is a wickedly good eyepiece, and not unfriendly to use, mind you I'm an experienced ortho user, even in the 24". Much more time is needed with the XO and I cant wait to get it on Jupiter and Saturn when high up with the fracs, This one use was all it took to confirm the 2.5XO is a superb piece of glass and now I must find a 5mm XO, for sure. No question. Gerry

Thanks Magnus, I might touch base with him soon, he mentioned "camera life" when we chatted. I dont know how to tell how much life is left in a used camera. He has a bunch of the "white" lenses he was going to lend me... yeah all I need to do is drop one of those suckers in the dark! Do you have lenses suitable for the aurora?

A question about interferometers. They can measure the wavefront of an optic. When many multiples of IF pictures across the optic are taken they then give an accurate "map" of the surface? If so then the more fringe pictures taken across the optic, the more accurate the map. So if an interferometer is tested in red light vs green does this affect the actual accuracy of the map? If so how much? I'm not talking Strehl ratio here just the visual optic map seen with reports that is most likely computer generated from (hopefully) a very high number of fringe pictures. If IF mapping can be used to map, can it be used to give an accurate indication of smoothness of the optic? Should other tests such as Focault shadowgrams be used as well? Thank, Gerry

Thank you! I just have an old Canon T3i/Sigma 3.5 wide zoom. Exactly what I want to do ie catch the fast moving or pulsing aurora its amazing how they can act as you know. I was looking to upgrade as I really want to capture the aurora in its full glory. We get them here frequently when active and I like to have a fast set up figured out to act quickly. I am pleased wit the I Phone results I couldnt believe it actually at just 3 sec exposure. I presume you have a full frame Nikon? Which one and how is the high ISO noise? I'm looking to buy used ideally.... Thank you, Gerry

This is absolutely the best that there is 👍

@globular my avatar reminds me of my grand daughters observing the aurora and meteor showers from our dock. We sit on our bench and look just like Snoopy and Woodstock lol

@Stu can we delete the first 3 huge images so I can repost them smaller and better?

Sure! Thank you very much, I wasnt sure if there would be a bunch of interest. Tonight should be stunning too- I want a "new" (gently used) DSLR for the aurora, but know very little. My buddy, my former millwright offered me his Canon 6D to try but didnt take him up on his very generous offer. I know I want low noise at high ISO but thats about it..Hes a semi pro photographer in retirement, weddings etc

@globular what is aspect ratio? the ratio of width to height?

Ill do another one

@globular thanks for helping me! Espc after exposing my weakness with this stuff... I figure its better to ask , exposing weakness than sitting here not knowing what to do lol Gerry

Trying...

Ok, so I drag it into the box here then do that? Sorry- I have good eyes but am basically useless with computers 😐. Thanks for the help, Gerry

I thought about this! It is a very good telescope- I'm having a hard time parting with it actually...

Great to know, maybe I should dig out the Quark to see whats happening on the sun too. I hope you get to see them- they were incredibly bright last night, at times drowning out Polaris.