Charic

Here's a staged shot in the living room, but it works just as well outside, just dont tell Mrs C that I'm still using the chair ( its the perfect height for my neck & head) https://stargazerslounge.com/gallery/image/29452-manfrotto-binocular-setup/

One of the most useful accessories I've ever owned, so yes, a good investment, because squeezing a fully adjustable trigger grip on a ball head is far more convenient than unlocking the pan & tilt levers on my other head, and the trigger grip is a one handed operation. When I looked for a trigger, I came across many positives over Manfrotto's build quality, but their 222 was discontinued, yet it just so happened, someone had a 'spare' 222 trigger grip laying idle, I was lucky, the cost was low, and its a decent bit of kit. I wasn't doubting how much your going to spend on the Ravelli. These days, many of the more expensive tripods are headless, meaning even more expense, after deciding on which head to purchase,so a complete setup for under £60 is/sounds like a bargain. With many brands to choose from, there will always the favourite or recommended version? I've only ever used this one, sorry if there was any doubt from my original reply. A rock steady view makes a huge visual difference ?

Paul, I've got an expensive all singing pan and tilt system on my three legged thing ( honestly, thats what their called ?) and it hardly ever gets used, but my Manfrotto 222 is always in use when I'm using binoculars, even on my 8x40's? Just makes the entire view that much more stable, making the image appear sharper. Once setup the binoculars stay exactly where I place them. For me, the Manfrotto 222 is a solid bit of kit, discontinued now, but if anyone comes across one, I'd surely recommend their purchase. You should clearly see and feel the difference whilst using a trigger grip.

Definitely not a dark site for me tonight, in-fact, never is during my Summer! especially when the sky is brighter than the street light. Its just past 2330 Hrs, looking NNE and its brighter in the West.

Similar task to that, which Stargazer McCabe followed, only on a 200P like yours, I singularly marked the position of the mirror cell end cap with the body of the telescope. With the scope laying horizontal on my table, I removed the circumferential screws that hold the mirror cell to the tube, then slid the mirror cell off. With the complete mirror and housing completely detached from the telescope, your better able to closely examine the mirror surface, which differs when trying to view down the scope at focal length? Its now possible to give the mirror a good cleaning without full detachment from the mirror cell, and once your happy with the clean, realign the mirror cell to the scope, using your ' alignment mark' and re-apply the screws. With careful handling, this task could complete without collimation, provided the mirror itself did not move within the cell that holds it. A Star test will confirm, and if required, collimate the scope. Remember, if the mirror itself was dirty, there's every chance there's more dust attached elsewhere inside the tube assembly, so that could require attention too, prior to refitting the mirror cell, just be cautious of the secondary mirror. Also mentioned, the whole task really is less daunting after you have rebuilt the scope for the first time.

.......still the hottest UK Year that I can recall, just sweltering.

No worries. I think Steve's charts are also clickable, giving an even larger view. I have produced my own charts in the past by using and editing the freeware program Stellarium. I just choose the area of interest and print only what I need. S.Tonkin's maps provide more detail than I would know where to start!

Already mentioned above by oldfruit, check under news letter, and if you subscribe (its free) you'll end up on the mailing list too! http://binocularsky.com You may also find more of what your after in the archives?

14mm and above is deemed suitable for spectacle wearers. With an apparent difference of 5mm ( mentioned in Johns report ) he still finds them suitable whilst wearing glasses, as stated above, providing the eye guards are lowered. I wear glasses too, but not when using binoculars. When I compared the two Marine binoculars, the eye relief was not something that was apparently different going from 7 to 10x, only the field of view was different.

@BinocularSky has forgotten his early report on the 10x50's where he measured 14mm with doubt? read it here http://www.strathspey.co.uk/10x50rev.html I had both the 7x50 and still have their 10x50's, the only reason I don't have the 7x50's is that the field of view is wider on my Helios 8x40 Natureport, otherwise they'd be part of my collection. With my 10x50's I estimate the closest sharpest image is about 42 feet for my eyes, but beyond that,once set, there's no further adjustment required, great views. Although some binoculars report their eye relief, this short video goes some way to explain what eye relief, and about getting your eye in just the right place? I've seen folk myself wearing glasses with the binocular eye cups fully extended and wondering how they manage? Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0RCqpajMwA

I'm not sure it really matters which constellation, on the other hand, Orion for example, is below my horizon except for the Winter season! However, I have read on several occasions that Ursa Minor is often recommended as your starting point for assessing your NELM. This link provides some info https://darkskydiary.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/naked-eye-limiting-magnitude-assessing-sky-brightness/

I like Moonshanes answer, it just depends really? and there are so many variables to overcome!. For me, 200x is my practical limit based on the size of my aperture, and focal ratio, although theoretically, twice that is possible, but not regular. To achieve 200x I'll use the equivalent of a 6mm eyepiece. I have viewed the Moon at 375x which was mighty impressive, though I doubt anything else up there would look as good.

This is as good a place as any to study some more and find reference to the various eyepieces available from TeleVue http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?ID=2 Personally, I don't think you can buy a much cheaper set of eyepieces than what I have in my collection, referring to my Starguiders, and the Revelation Plössl's. So why then did I reject TeleVue's Delos eyepieces and their famous Plössls? Put simply, on axis, in my f/6 scope, to my eyes alone, their performances are no better than what I have now, so it seemed futile to continue building complete sets, when what I have at present works fine and dandy! Like Alan Potts suggests above, "issues with the TV Plössl's eye-relief" - I too found issues, yet find it more comfortable using my shorter focal length Revelations ( how/why is that possible ?). There are other reasons too for rejecting certain eyepieces. To be frank! the best eyepiece out there will be the one you'll find yourself, comfortable to use, suitable for the scope, providing for your viewing pleasure, a quality framed image. That best eyepiece, We've all got one? its called the 'personal preference' - we just can't all agree on it! Whatever you choose, good luck, and dark skies.

That comparison chart helped persuade me towards my Revelation collection, although GSO is not embossed anywhere on the eyepieces that I own. Right or wrong, I went on the belief ( advertised as being ) that they are GSO constructed, and like many other brands, Paradigm, Starguider, Agena, you takes your pick. I favoured them over the TeleVue Plössl, more so due to the fact that the revelations go down to 4mm, but the eye-relief and pricing is something to consider, which is bearable if you take the second hand route which I did. I find the Revelations bright and sharp, the afov is a tad wider than the TeleVue at 52° but the eye-relief is still something you will have to contend with. I wanted a Plössl set? I now have one, but still love and prefer my 60°ED Starguiders. I'd love to see (if it exists) the report whereby a BST Starguider was thrown in with a few select premium eyepieces, for the guests to peruse, and without their knowledge as to which brand they were looking through? Though it never came out as the clear winner, there was some amusement as to just how well the BST fared against the other eyepieces.

I didn't doubt it, I thought I'd confused you from my text, but now I'm thinking that I really know little at all myself? Ive always thought my images are small in the Skyliner anyway, but when I stick a 1200mm OTA to the DSLR I expected so much more, but not the case! Its my present understanding that F1200/sensor diagonal=42 so I'm looking at the Moon/any subject with a fixed 1200mm lens, with only 42x mag, now seems totally naff if correct, or my understanding is totally incorrect. The camera concerned is the Nikon D5000, so if you/anyone can give a final push in the right direction, I'll be so much happier and more the wiser.

Sorry Olly. I read that the image produced in my scope with DSLR attached would equal 42 magnification, rather than 42 times something? It said "divide the telescopes focal length by the the diagonal of the sensor" and for my system, this results in 42x.

Been reading some more and think I'm sorted now, maybe not! The Skyliner will act as a 1200mm lens, and will provide a magnification in my DSLR of about 42x? This equates to the focal length of the scope divided by the diagonal of the camera's sensor? Therefore, I believe that if I need more magnification, a Barlow or an eyepiece is required. Said I was no expert, but always willing to learn.

Its funny how something jumps out at you when you re-read something, cheers brantuk! Now I'm far from being the astrophotographer professional, but I now know why my early images are smaller than I had anticipated, some Years ago when I first got my Dob and first attached my D5000 thinking that by using my scope I was actually using a 1200mm lens ? As stated, the telescope captures light photons from the target and focuses this light to form a 'real' image at the focal plane, that's it! Therefore, the scopes image at the focal plane would be the same, would it not, as if you were looking at it with the naked eye, ie. no magnification and very small. The introduction of the eyepiece allows you to see this image in detail, and using the formula F/f=X derived from the focal length (F) of the scope and the focal length of the eyepiece (f), you apply magnification (X) to the image..............pretty simple. I often mention that eyepieces alone, especially those expensive premium ones, can't improve the details beyond what the scope itself provides, but if that image is good from the start, the eyepiece can improve the field of view, and enhance the eye-relief, but to think its taken me over three Years to just realise what I was trying to achieve back then.........laughable!

I love simple answers.

The two handles either side of the scope provide friction/tension, and lock the scope in place, In use, it's a one handed operation, the tensioner handle is nearest to the user, or should be. This video demonstrates the tensioner handle, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vNOuw1_RJk Separation of the OTA from the base makes for lighter work when lifting/moving the scope, though if able, the 8" Skyliner can be lifted as a whole. Check this video, showing a range of Skyliners, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDY8extsWH8 ignore the rack & pinion, Its only on the 6" version of the Skyliner.

Sorry..................Let the battle begin! My collection was all over the place earlier this Year, trying to find what felt comfortable, producing a decent image to my eyes and cost effective! but as you can see from my signature, some user favourites have all been sold' Those eyepieces are often sought after, but I'm really happy with the collection that remains. My earliest decisions set the path for a Plössl set? but I bought an 8mm Starguider, the first set acquired, but still could not make up my mind for a Plössl brand, then I needed a 6mm to match the focal ratio, hence the WO SPL, set two complete, and finally settled for the Revelation Plössl's. Oh and I needed a wide angle, but only one Panaview is required, so still slightly mis-matched, but only because the BST Starguider set fails to provide (my) missing focal lengths!

Wow! another memory jogger, may even have the Observers book of Astronomy somewhere, it looks similar, but boxes and boxes need to removed to find that one! I wonder how much difference there is in the reported information within the older books, from that of today, especially with the advent of newer technology. For example, how much has the Moon changed from the late 60's to the present day?

........looking at your collection, it appears I have more?..............back in a mo! Yep three more added to the image?

Just remembered, Sky & Telescope's Pocket Atlas, though where it is at present, don't know?

In no particular order, this is my collection, although there is one missing, but the title escapes me just now, although its a popular recommend ?