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

Everything posted by orley

  1. Have used both HEQ5 and AVX. Virtually nothing between them.
  2. Yes, had mine on a CG-5 before the AVX, handled it easily. Absolutely!
  3. Oops, something went wrong there! Tried to add in that mine weighs roughly the same (no doubt scales vary!). Also wanted to add that mine sits beautifully on both the Celestron AVX mount and the SkyWatcher HEQ5.
  4. I have one and have yet to find it of much use I'm afraid. I'm not far from the end of runway 2 at Manchester Airport! Tom.
  5. Hi, Yes, this is it! Apologies for the misleading headline in my post. Yes, in fact I could focus the outer part and have the inside unfocussed. So it seems my collimation was okay then. I have an assortment of other eyepieces to try, so I'll see what the view is like with those. Thanks for this! I'll have a good read. Thanks everyone for your help Tom.
  6. Hi all, At Xmas my wife bought me an unexpected but very welcome gift - a Skyliner 200 dob, purchased from FLO. Unfortunately through one thing and another first light with it wasn't until the end of last week. Out of the box the scope was out of collimation and I thought I'd collimated correctly, but in use I noticed what - to me - seems to be a large amount of coma. Stars in the centre of view were tight and sharp, but sharpness rapidly fell away towards the edges of the FOV. This was a disappointment, as I noticed a quite considerable increase in depth and detail. For example, the Double Cluster showed far more, clearly resolved stars than through my 100ED, but I couldn't get the view sharp across the field of view. Is this normal for an 8" F6 newtonian? Or is the scope still not collimated properly? I did have a 6" F5 a long time ago and don't recall having the same issue. If it is normal, how much of the FOV of view should be sharp? I'm estimating the sharpness drops off significantly about half way towards the edge of the FOV. I should add that the effect was similar when using both a 2" SkyWatcher 28mm LET and an 18mm 1.25" BST. Other than that I quite like the scope. The light grasp over the 100ED is quite noticeable. Thanks in advance, Tom.
  7. Well yes...but only if you can be sure of picking up an equinox at that sort of price later on.
  8. See this thread for an opinion on that question! http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/258680-is-avx-a-step-down-from-heq5/
  9. Hi, It may simply be that the HEQ5 has been around longer - relatively speaking the AVX is still a baby. I have noticed a tendency on SGL for members recommend the HEQ5 by default - that always concerns me because I wonder how many of those members have actually used the HEQ5 they recommend, or if they have then have they used an AVX? Are they merely repeating the wisdom that has come before? Who knows? I never recommend anything I haven't tried for myself. I've used both and liked both but in the end went for the AVX, partly because I preferred the Celestron software, partly because I liked the look of it better, partly because I had a lot of happy use out of the CG-5 I had before, partly because I just liked the idea of something newer. So far I've not had any reason to regret my decision. To me the AVX is certainly not a step down from the HEQ5. No doubt some one will post about the superiority of this, that and the other, but in use I noticed very little difference - both tracked equally well, both carried the payload fine, no difference in setting up. I would say that to me the HEQ5 slews a little more quietly, but not enough to be a deal maker. I suppose if you are that concerned about whether you've made the right purchase, see if you can test a HEQ5 - it's the only way you'll know for sure. Regards, Tom.
  10. I get a pretty smooth graph! Perhaps though I'll try longer exposures and see what the difference is.
  11. SkyWatcher 100ED. It's a bit slow but perfectly servicable!
  12. Instead of a guidescope why not try using a 9x50 finder instead? Much less weight, about £45 to buy and works great with an ED 80. You can always save up and upgrade later.
  13. Had mine runnung with default settings and it guides beautifully. Haven't yet found the need to tinker. The only problem I've had was with a dodgy cable. Admittedly I'm not going for image of the year but using a QHY5//finder combination and an old Canon DSLR I get nice tight, round stars from 10 minute subs. If only I coukd get rid of the darn light pollution that is forever my bugbear! One day...
  14. 100 ED sits nicely on the AVX. There's a reducer available which brings it down to F7.65
  15. A simle and elegant solution. This has happened to me twice. After this, hopefully never again. Thanks for sharing
  16. I've used a 9x50 finder for guiding for over a year now, not a single issue with it. Nice tight stars in my images.
  17. If bought new (and quite often second hand) the ED100 comes with a reducer which takes it down to F7.65, same as the ED80. That said, you can add a reducer to the 80 as well, but it is an extra purchase. 7.65 is regarded by many as slow, but still quite practical. I used to use a 150mm F5 newt for imaging but TBH I get better results now. There is the added benefit of the extra aperture compared with the 80 for visual use. In terms of tracking I've had no issues with my reduced ED100 and using a 9x50 finderscope for guiding. Lovely round stars.
  18. The Celestron AVX is more rugged and sturdy, takes more weight yet is still very portable. I upgraded from a much loved CG-5 and have been very happy with it. Takes my 100ED beautifully.
  19. The 100ED is a cracking scope. Especially at 2nd hand prices.
  20. Guiding requires little processing power. Extra RAM helps when processing images. Big disk is handy as subs can have large file sizes. Battery life is important only if you don't have mains power. The bigger the screen the better. The more USB ports the better too. There really is no need to spend a fortune. As I've posted previously I use an old HP core 2 duo, works absolutely fine. Ultimately it depends on what's important to you. Reliability and a big screen are my top requirements.
  21. I wouldn't have thought so but will happily stand corrected! Obviously it will have to be initially pointed towards the pole but for visual only it wouldn't need to be overly accurate.
  22. All quite fascinating. I could mention Strehl but I won't Having owned a very similar Celestron 6" F5 newt I can say that my 100ED gives tighter, sharper views if, perhaps, a little less bright. All subjective but I prefer it that way around. I'd have thought that a 120ED would give the brightness my scope lacks whilst retaining the sharpness. Also, at F7.5 the FOV is wider. It will sit nicely on a AVX mount too.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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