4 minutes ago, Craney said:

My Nan could not read or write and so she never followed up on her experience apart from telling her story by spoken word.     As a teenager I was fascinated to hear her describe the phenomena first hand.  This was the era before the internet and my knowledge of the strange and unexplained came from libraries and in particular "Aurthur C.Clarkes Mysterious World".

Her description was very close to the other accounts in the detail.   One thing I remember was her saying that the bright sphere came down the chimney, followed her around the room and when she opened the window to 'shoo' it out   (!!!!), the object passed through the glass.

For a lady of her background, that must have been on a par to seeing a ghost !

 

Sean.

 

I have had other older relatives with similar experiences, this was before TV so was not something they had seen elsewhere and imagined. My Gran was also very insistent that you have your doors open during a thunderstorm just in case.....

Alan

10 hours ago, Craney said:

Grandmas must attract it  !!!     My granny was similarly chased around her house by such a phenomena.   

If she ever visited when a storm was about, she would say  "unplug the telly and open the window to let the lightning out !!"

I have a feeling that ball lightening was much more common years ago, I would expect the internet to be full of mobile phone captures with todays increased population and available technology but it isn't...

The other thing my gran would say is that it wasn't floating around but levitating at a constant distance from the floor as though it had anti gravity properties... The event lasted several minutes too.

Alan

There have been a lot of thunderstorms recently and it got me thinking about the strange phenomena of ball lightening, from what I gather there is no conscientious as to what it might be, theory's range from some sort of plasma to elemental micro black holes...

I wonder what the latest view is?, I remember my Grandmother encountering one over 50 years ago about the size of a football that entered her home and moved through it and exited via the back door with no damage to anything. 

Alan

Just binged watched the first three episodes on i player, brilliant stuff from Jim AK. I also noticed an horizon program on the i player "how to build a time machine" so watched that too.....

Alan

2 minutes ago, Uranium235 said:

Looking at the rear end of a Sammy, it looks like the bayonet can be removed (held on by three screws). It might be possible to engineer something to replace it, but it would need to be precision stuff, not something I could knock up on the kitchen table.

I found that most old M42 lenses had a back that had three screws too, I did swap out a old lens using a donor one that fitted with no mods so worth taking some measurements and a visit to a few charity shops.....

Alan

1 minute ago, Uranium235 said:

lol... I wish Samywang made an M48 or T2 fit version... that would be fantastic

That would be good but not impossible, I can just remember a company in the far east that could swap out the back end of any camera lens (mechanical bits not the glass) to any fitting...

Alan

7 minutes ago, Uranium235 said:

I was looking around for a cheap used 135mm sammy, but came across something very interesting this evening. Samyang have released a 135mm cine lens, rated at T2.2 (transmission value, rather than F ratio). Its expensive, but I found that you can get a variant with a fitting  called "Positive Lock". Which gives a much more secure fit than the standard EF springs found on your typical camera mount (as cine lenses are heavy beasts).

A little more digging found that there is a PL - T2 adaptor available, and the flange-chip distance of the lens is a generous 52mm.

Would be nice to see someone with deep pockets give that a go for astro but as always, best to keep your powder dry until someone else makes the leap. Its only been released this month, so its yet to get any attention. If its anything like the standard 135, it would be quite special - especially given the secure nature of its mountings.

The price? £1544 .... hahahaha yea right (if I won the lotto)  

Weight? 1.4kg .... lol...

Thats a lot of dough for 135mm.

https://rokinon.com/xeen/xeen-cine-system/135mm-t22

 

Sounds good, as to price a similar Canon version would be 6K+ so its a bargain...... I also suspect most scope manufacturers like TAK would run and hide if they had to get anywhere near f/2 at any price 

Alan

The 80D is a bit of an oddball in the Canon range as its more like a Nikon camera, the theory suggests that an ISO less camera suffers no image degradation when shooting at say ISO 200 and applying post processing gain than if it was shot at a higher ISO in the first place.

The gain applied however is slightly different, the camera ISO control is effectively analogue gain like a volume control and post processing purely digital in that it multiplies the values. I expect there is a compromise between the two methods although its probably best to stick to low ISO values but still worth experimenting.

Alan

Skywatcher AZ GTI mount or even the SW Star adventurer, best mounts ever made...

Alan

Dont have the HEQ5 but with my EQ3 fitted with a dovetail and ball head can get 3 mins unguided with short fl camera lenses. The addition of the ball head allows for better framing of an object..

Alan

If the "one" scope was for visual then it would be my C90 Mak as I only look at the Moon, the choice for imaging however would be my 70-200 f/4 L lens.

Alan

3 minutes ago, KyleStoke said:

Hi Alan 

You may know this then. Do MPB check the optics of the lenses they sell, I was reading there terms and they state fully tested I don't know if this goes as far as the optical alignment but I guess being second hand they might check

I dont know how much testing they do but they seem to check the lens mechanical functionality as well as looking for dust/scratches and fungus..

Alan

MPB and WEX are the main retailers for all my camera kit, new or used and never been disappointed...

Alan

Lens Pen...

Alan

2 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

Sorry if you have already said, but which tripod is that Alan? I have been looking at this, after a tip from Littleguy80: 3 Legged Thing Punks Corey tripod. Not the one he has, but similar.

 

I have a Redsnapper tripod https://redsnapperuk.com/product/rsf-284m-alloy-4-section-tripod/ but there are plenty of similar ones on Amazon from Zomei/Neewer. I would say its not the lightest tripod in the world and for a bit more you can get similar specked carbon fiber ones.

Alan

On 23/07/2019 at 21:12, Greymouser said:

Does that mean that the smaller focal length eyepieces are unlikely to find focus then? Disappointing. Never mind, thank you for looking and trying.

@AdeKing Thank you for that suggestion, I guess the idea is similar to using the 50ED. When I looked, at the finders with a built in prism/diagonal, I found it difficult to decide which would accept any eyepiece and which only a fixed one. There are many different makers offering such, but all are a little ambiguous for a stupid person like me.

It seems odd to me that no telescope producer is offering a suitable, specific scope, for the ultra light market. ( Except for the Borg! Always assuming you can find one and afford it! 😜 ) There seems to be many people who want such and as ever the choice needs to be larger than what is currently available. Perhaps most people use finders of one sort or another.

It is quite a difficult choice, for me, but My C5 covers a lot of bases, but I want lighter and pocket size, so I guess the ED monocular it is. Then I just need to decide if I should supplement it with a 600g mighty mak. There are worst problems to face.

One last question: Anyone suggest a decent light monopod?

I can get by with my C90 Mak on a photo tripod, the tripod also has a leg that unscrews for use as a monopod (common feature on a lot of tripods), I even use the monopod as a walking stick with a DIY handle fitted..........

Alan

Most modern camera lenses with AF are designed to go to infinity and beyond for video use so that the motors dont hit a solid end stop.

Alan

The thing about Maks (and SCT) is the strength of the "focusser assembly" you could hang 10Kgs of camera or eyepiece off it and it wouldn't sag at all plus the spherical mirrors can achieve far greater accuracy than any parabolic one. Another factor is that a Mak will make even a cheap eyepiece perform like a Teleview, well almost...

Alan

1 hour ago, Stu said:

That's not actually true Alan. A decent widefield scope could give you from 3.5, possibly up to 5 degrees of sky which is enough to fit it in. My old Genesis will do it, at 500mm focal length and plenty others out there too such as the skywatcher 120mm f5 achro with a 2" eyepiece in it; that's where some of these achro scopes will shine, on low powered, widefield views.

You are right that a widefield scope using low powers will fit it in but still feel that some observers under estimate its size and start looking "through" it with to much magnification....

Alan

Andromeda is huge, it spans a distance greater than 6 moon widths so you  are only ever going to get it all in low power binoculars...

Alan

1 minute ago, cuivenion said:

Is the 60d effected by that?

Dont think so, it used phase detection for video and live view (I think) rather than the hybrid system with its extra rows of detectors that caused all the banding issue, the later dual pixel models are fine.

Alan

18 minutes ago, cuivenion said:

Thanks I'll look into it. I had heard that models after the 600d had a banding problem when used for Astro. The 60d is a bit more expensive as well.

Correct the banding problem was due to the hybrid AF system used on models after the 600D. Have a look at MPB photographic for good used cameras.

Alan

I agree with others that a tilt screen is very useful but not sure that the rest of the 600D is enough of an upgrade, a 60D would be far better.

Alan

24 minutes ago, andrew s said:

In modern parlance accelerating a particle increase its energy but its mass stays the same. (Mass being reserved for rest mass in old parlance.) But, as you say the metrical expansion of space does not increase the energy of matter imbedded in it.

Is this a recent change? and does it now mean that particles with mass can achieve the speed of light....

Alan

I must admit that I have never liked the term "speed of light" which suggests distance /time when its mostly used as an absolute limit as in C.....

Alan