Roy Challen

Apologies if this is already a thread, but what is your most desirable telescope? Doesn't have to be the best, just the one you want the most.

For me, it has to be a Zeiss APQ 100mm, or a Telementor, or a Questar 90mm, or perhaps a Mag 1 Portaball, or other scope with a Zambutto mirror. In that order.

14 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

 I was introduced to this old 5 element super plossl design back in 2015 by paulastro. At the time I was using Pentax XW's as my prefered eyepiece, but I was immediately impressed by the clarity and on axis sharpness of this pseudo Masuyama's / Zeiss astro planar design. I'd love to have them all with just one brand name, but I've had to settle for a mixed bag of Celestron Ultima's, Orion Ultrascopic's, Park's Gold, and Baader Eudiascopic's. All identical in design and performance,  so i cant complain.  I have 35mm, 25mm, 18mm, 12.5mm, 10mm, & 7.5mm pairs for bino viewing, and a 20mm, 5mm, & 3.8mm as singles. A few nights ago while observing Mars, I compared the 3.8mm Parks Gold with my Vixen 3.4mm HR and was quite impressed at how  close the were in terms of sharpness and the definition they showed.

Below is a pic of the Moon from the April 28th taken through the 25mm in my binoviewer with a, not very clean, hand held phone camera. It goes without saying that the view through the eyepiece was considerably sharper and more detailed.

 

How's the eye relief on the 5 and 3.8mm? I have owned 30, 12.5, and 7.5mm Ultimas in the past. They were good but not better than equivalent orthos. Just curious, as I'm looking for a good 5mm and maybe <2.5mm without having to use a barlow. Possibly, using a barlow with a slightly longer focal length is actually better.

8 minutes ago, alecras2345 said:

So if I sign up to telescope.live I'll have to edit the images?    I've never edited,  

Ash

You've never altered an image captured with your phone? It's not that hard tbh. Have a look at some images of the objects you're interested in and attempt to replicate them. That's the only useful way of learning how to do it! You could try to use your phone to take an image of the moon and see how that turns out. Really, it's not that hard, and up to a certain level, even quite fun!

19 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

No, the editing is the fun that people buy into when they buy telescope and camera time.

Ready made images are already out there. Mine are here: https://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other

If you'd like any of these, you're welcome. Just PM me.

Olly

Damn, I thought it was the capturing that was the fun!

23 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

You do know you've now committed us to weeks of cloud 🤬

I'm guilty of that having bought a Tak recently. However, it seems only to apply to night time as I've had some good solar sessions recently 😄.

Regarding the continuum filter, try it without, before committing to another purchase. Just saying 

One more! A bit of white light this morning after my more usual Ha sesh.

Pretty good seeing, so out came the long achro, continuum filter, and zoom ep. 

AR 3285/8

Very good detail seen in this region. Controversially, I think the view was better without the filter. Well, it was brighter, maybe not better.

3 hours ago, John said:

They did have a 5mm Circle-T a week or so back but it went quickly - I had thought that you might have snagged it !

5mm is very useful focal length, almost independent of telescope focal length. I had a 5mm BGO not too long ago, sold it, then immediately regretted doing so...

I think there is a thread for such admissions...😀

Just before the deadline closes then, here's something new from me. I have hardly ever tried to sketch the moon, or parts of it - too much detail. Last night I gave it a go. The view below of Rupes Recta is not the eyepiece view, it's just a small part of it. I used a Hb to mark out the main features' outlines and 5/6b for shading. The scaling is slightly wrong in the lower left quadrant, but I'm still happy with the final result.

I dabbled in 68 and 82 degree AFOVs a long while back, but never stopped using orthos and plossls. These days, that's all I use other than my Hyperflex zoom.

Lighter in the focuser and lighter on the wallet!

18 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

I do like 4" fracs and am looking for one of the synthetic fluoride ones - next best thing?

Hmm not sure about that, fluoride goes in toothpaste, fluorite goes in telescopes😜!

Nice setup, and fantastic drawings 👍

43 minutes ago, PeterStudz said:

 tools like screwdrivers or allen keys. These items are prohibited in the cabin so need to go into the hold. 

Depends on airline and destination 

39 minutes ago, PeterStudz said:

When I took a telescope on an aircraft I made what I could out of what I already had. Obviously taking my 200p Dob wasn’t going to happen but the little 4.5 inch reflector was perfectly practical to take on as cabin baggage. Plus the mount and accessories there was still room for some cloths too.

But I decided on a basic tripod over a Dob base. Where we went the ground was uneven and rocky so I simple tripod was far more practical. I just used a lightweight tripod from my old EQ1 which went into the hold. You can pick them up for peanuts. Sure, it’s wobbly but it was rarely necessary (if at all) to go over around 40x and the stunning views made up for any shakes!

And it was so dark. Eg we could easily make out the swan nebula naked eye. Through the telescope the lagoon and triffid nebula were outstanding. Especially the lagoon - I’ve never even anything like it and this thorough a small reflector. So whatever you take/do have fun and enjoy yourself.

Only other advice that I can think of is to be careful with any tools like screwdrivers or allen keys. These items are prohibited in the cabin so need to go into the hold. 

Yes, where you're heading off to determines what you'll take with you far more than what the airlines say you can take.

17 hours ago, Shimrod said:

Have you considered a large pair of binoculars (80mm+) on a tripod as an alternative? They'd probably survive the trip in the hold a lot better than a reflector, and if you are truly dark skies even the binoculars will amaze when compared to London skies.

You might also want to check travel insurance for the level of cover if you're going to pack anything valuable in the hold.

Possibly, if you're limited to what you can take with you, bins will be best. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened for me.

3 hours ago, Highburymark said:

Personally I wouldn’t risk anything in the hold. You could end up without anything to enjoy those dark skies.  
The scopes I’ve taken as hand luggage are:    
4” Maksutov - really not the right scope for DSOs, and as a fellow city dweller, it was an unsatisfying travel scope.   
80ED Equinox - excellent all rounder. 
100mm Apo, minus the focuser and dew shield to fit into hand luggage - pretty much a dream set up.    
85mm Apo - my current set up. This is the one I’ll stick with. There is so much to see travelling when you’re not used to dark skies that the slightly small aperture isn’t really an issue. 
If you’re determined to take a larger scope, I do like the idea of a C5 though - and you wouldn’t need to risk it in the hold - it would easily fit into hand luggage. 

Agree with this. As a frequent traveler to places where most 1st world people don't go, I don't take what I can't afford to replace. More importantly, what I take with me depends on what I want to observe. However, it is a balance between sky quality, favourite objects, and equipment available.

The only eyepieces I regret selling were my Zeiss CZJs 6/10/16mm orthos and the 25mm Huygens. 😢 

I do like it, but it's not a new concept. Takahashi do an extender and reducer for the FS60, and you can fit the 76mm objective to the FS60 tube. I'd be surprised if Borg scopes weren't at least as interchangeable too.

As I only tend to use filters to reduce the CA in my achro, I don't have anything fancy. Baader solar continuum, and Semi-apo, one for day time and one for night 

From my garden; all DSOs

5 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Gah, got my terminology the wrong way round there, it was the eye relief I was thinking of.  Cheers for the correction. Barlow increases but telecentric doesn't increase the eyerelief?

It has been a long day 😂

Yep, exactly. It can be a useful property with short focal length orthos and plossls.

All done now, there's some more action a little further south though, so I'll keep an eye on it☀️

09:09, very fast moving 

Blatant plug, but is this of any use to you?

I need one of these, as good as my BCOs are, both natively and barlowed, they just don't have the reach in a short focal length frac. Or maybe a x3 or x5 barlow would work.

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

CA on the sun ?

Yup, the brighter the object, the more likely it is to occur. My f/16 achro shows CA on the sun, using a solar continuum filter removes this at the expense of a green sun.