Charic

With a setup like yours, folk here may well be asking you for advice? Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Some final images of the moon that I see that have been stacked and manipulated, remind me of wet slate, not what you'd see with the naked eye, but artistic licence is what it's all about for some folk.

Looks pretty good as it is!

That'll need a lot of tin foil, and there's your reflector! I'm aware of the Norwegians reflecting Sunlight through the use of hill top mirrors to get light down where its needed, but getting something into space for the same reason, that's a big take, but I'm sure it could be done, right or wrong!

I hope you get it fixed and find your solution? When I last updated to a version higher than 0.15.0 I had some weird issues on my Mac ( there is a thread somewhere) so I just reverted back to 0.15.0, whilst waiting for a revised update, and I'm still there, with 0.15, no issues, but I'm sure whatever the problem was back then for my system, its probably been sorted now, maybe I should try again sometime. Mac 10.14 Mojave

Sorry, my bad! I actually chose 7x50 to stay in-line with the title theme. My 15x70 Revelations would have been more appropriate!

On a side note Steve, given the amount of binoculars you have discovered that are internally stopped down? I would assume, for example, that the full 7.14... exit is not always achievable from a full 7x50 binocular. Therefore one would need to know the true aperture to get a more accurate measurement of the exit pupil Folk could use the torch method you have often described, taking the size of the exit pupil multiplied by the magnification to ascertain the true aperture of their binoculars. I know folk have questioned this in the past, but manufacturers can still have 7x50 on the body because it really is 7x and 50mm, but what happens inside remains a mystery, until you dig deeper, as shown quite often in your reports.

Hello Pierre and welcome to the Stargazers Lounge.

I have one of those Keter plastic sheds, and have never seen any condensation within, due no doubt down to the louvred ventilation panels. I think as long as the containment is dry, with sufficient air flow and secure, then outside storage should be straight forward. Nothing has ever rusted in my workshop either, this is a wooden shed, no visual ventilation ports? Although both my units appear to be suitable, my scope has its own cupboard indoors, and the scope is ready to lift outside when needed. Next time you move, give some thought and make sure there's some priority space for your kit

The planets are poorly placed for my needs, or I'm poorly placed for them ( trees, woods, buildings ) but the 2" aperture on my 8" scope works well when I view the Moon.

This is what I use and favour. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-binoculars/helios-naturesport-plus-8x40-wa-binoculars.html Your dilated and age related eyes may not allow you to get the full use/benefit of a 7mm exit pupil from the 7x50 option. None of your present binoculars provide you more than a 5 mm exit pupil, so a 7mm exit from 7x50, will bring no real benefit. I still have some 7x50's but the 8x40s get used all the time, day and night, and with a good field of view of +8° . Totally hand holdable at this magnification, even better mounted. Everyone has some hand shake, but mounting a binocular is going to improve what you observe due to the static image. I also use a sturdy tripod and trigger grip giving me plenty of orientation. My Helios Naturesport 8x40's were cheaper ( FLO sale) but still worth the £69 their charging today. Try them, return them if they don't suit! I note you have Helios 15x70. I'm assuming Apollo's? I had some for a night, but if I go down that route again, I'm aiming for the Oberwerk Ultra (same optics). My 8x40's get most use, and my 10x50 Strathspey's are buried in a secure case in the boot of the car if I chance upon something when out driving.

The 9mm should show you some detail, but the planets are not in an ideal position (for me) this time of the year. Their best observed when high in the sky, less atmosphere to look through!

The theory that Ruud provides is spot on, however theory does require a scope perfectly setup and perfect conditions in which to view. Theoretically my scope is capable of 400x twice the aperture, but I always suggest sticking with the aperture itself for optimal performance, pushing just a little more, till I find the limit for the target in question, but seeing conditions need to be good, as does my tracking at such high magnification on a manual Dobsonian. On my 200P 8" scope the Moon looks good at x375 mag, but the Moon is easy to see with the 200P. Try x375 on any other target and its just not good.

Hello and welcome. Your simply asking too much from your scope? Your focal length is I believe 1000mm. Using a 3 Barlow on a 9mm eyepiece is providing something like 333x magnification whereas with an aperture of 114mm, you would be better aiming for around 114x magnification, of which yousrscope is capable. The focal length of your scope divided by the focal length of an eyepiece dictates the power or magnification. so 1000mm(scope) / 9mm (eyepiece) = x111 magnification. This is within the limits of this scope. Pop that 3xBarlow onto the focuser and your focal length is now effectively 3000mm. so the math is 3000/9= x333 magnification.......exceeding the ability of the scope. However 3000/25mm eyepiece produces 125x magnification which is why it seems like the better eyepiece, but push beyond this and your images will deteriorate.

Hopefully no major issues from your eye test. As with most items when it comes to astronomy, no matter what the item, we only ever know and learn by trial and error. Paul, I doubt your alone with Dioptrx.