nicoscy

Slow Mo are always nice to have. If the mount balances well and is on a solid tripod, wobble is much reduced.

The AZ75 does not have slow motion controls though, does it?

As for encoders, the CT mounts have been tested with it - but you need to contact the owner of the business as per the feedback he gave me:

"The encoder in the video you sent is mine.
 I asked my acquaintance to test it.
It wasn't bad, but the price was quite high."

His name is Jeong and his email is nohsmount@gmail.com. See video here.

Indeed they are - lightweight, allows for mounting two scopes and can handle easily large refractors!

Mike,

Noh's mounts don't have sol-mo controls. Those are tension knobs. But, balance the mount well and it glides with a gentle touch of a finger.

Gary, I use a Noh's CT30 mount for the 125. The CT-20 has been tested by others on the APM 6" scope and found just fine - I got the CT30 just because.

For the FS-102, I use the Stellarvue M2C is perfectly capable for a 4" class scope.

There are many options and while I do realize that there is a budget, if you do not have a decent mount and tripod, you will not enjoy the scope.

Then there is the Rowan AZ100 and soon the AZ75.

Options galore...

Gary,

There's no right or wrong decision here. 

I am sure both scopes would be equally pleasing to use, each with its strengths and weaknesses

1 minute ago, dweller25 said:

@ukskies
 

My FS128 shows more planetary detail than my 100DZ but the DZ is so much easier to setup and cool down.

I also have a Mewlon 180 which because it is short is VERY comfortable to use. It’s very close in performance to the FS128 and has superb contrast - I really like it and I am a refractor guy ! but it NEEDS active thermal management - I use a fan.

Balancing performance, cooling and ease of use/setup I would put them in this order

1. 100DZ

2. Mewlon 180

3. FS128

I have a bad back that plays a major part in this assessment. 

 

Had both FS128 and Mewlon 180; and have a bad back - and your comments are spot on sir!

Agree with others recommending a 5" class.

If there is no issue in terms of the extra weight, size and mounting requirements, then go for the 5"!

3 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Your Tak is called Cynthia??? 😄

My Tak is a lady, like all my scopes. Her name is Mira (O-Ceti) !

I have a Tak FS-102 NSV and the Astro-Tech 125EDL (more or less same to the Altair version). Unless you are under the most impressively dark skies and possess a keen eye, it comes down to 7.854 sq. mm Vs 12,272 sq. mm surface lens area.

As I have found from my own testing, the AT bests the Tak easily for looking at dim stuff. One does not simply ignore 1.5x light gathering capability. Physics is physics!

I haven't had the chance to do a side by side at high powers though - Been up to 110x on doubles but that (for both scopes) is just scratching the surface. 

But, if I had to pick one, for sentimental reasons, because it's easier to set up in terms of needing a lighter mount and tripod, and because I just love the scope, I'd keep the Tak.

Also, the missus would kill me if I sold the Tak as it bears her name 😬

The 533MM would complement the 533MC in terms of much better sensitivity and same great low noise characteristics....

Phedhad,

I put the two side by side and rotated and changed the image scale of one a bit. I think this illustrates my point about detail (color is of course beautiful and offers different context).

There is significant difference in details in the two images, the mono pulling ahead. Let's not forget, that all cameras start as mono and then the Bayer matric is laid on top, which reduces sensitivity to each color since only a portion of the sensor captures each separate color. 

I am planning for a future obsy myself, and while my Tele Vue Genesis will be permanently paired with the ASI533MC Pro I have, for wider field and color detail, the C11 @ f6.3 I plan to use to chase faint fuzzies will be paired with the ASI294MM Pro as this will offer a genuine advantage over a color camera.

Ultimately, it comes down to preferences. Some like color, some mono, some both. Room for everyone in this hobby!

Actually, probably most that buy the scope are imagers, and maintaining a separate SKU for those who did not want the IS version probably has a higher cost for Tele Vue, so they sell the IS versions, which are of course suitable for visual (and then some!), but which won't vignette due to the larger focuser, thus suitable for imagers.

Any 80/400 achromat will do, Omegon has them, Skywatcher has them, they come under different names.

If you want metal focuser, then that is an after market job to replace the focuser, which you can do yourself.

Many do so and use these as super-wide field scopes since they provide 6.35° TFOV with a Nagler 31mm.

Fedele,

You have a great Mewlon 180, given the photos I have seen around.

You also have a 4" Tak as well? If you DO have the 4" Tak, I would recommend you stick with the Mewlon and the 4" as they complement each other!

Borg 60ED running at f3.6 for EEVA on the AZ GTi. Grab this with one hand, ipad with the other and just plop down on a chair for some fun. Easiest setup ever, instant gratification!

Hopefully they will add the entire range. More Blue rings are a thing of beauty!

Mike,

I have the same scope and at 240x with binoviewers, I was not even tickling the scope's capabilities. 

I did order and receive eyepieces for higher magnification, but other things got in the way and I have not been able to push to silly magnifications yet!

I am not claiming that the CN approach is the best. What I mentioned is that it was the most workable we could find.

I am not trying to be controversial, but stacking the next day means you just got the data one night and viewed it the next day, so it is not close to live. My 2c and feel free to ignore.

The point of amateur observational astronomy is to actually observe. How it is done is up to each person...

5 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Agree with all of this. Except we don’t have enough NV practitioners on SGL to justify a separate forum at the moment. Trouble is we have almost nothing in common with EEVA either. The only threads we can all contribute to are these long discussions trying to define what EEVA is. There’s no common ground - unless we use the same filters. 

 

Agreed and noted. On CN we had to reach a critical volume of both topics / posts and number of active members before taking action...

How about using tags for NV related topics?

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

I'm sure they will - but I was just making a point that whole system can be packaged into eyepiece sized device.

Don't really follow how intensifier can perform better when both devices operate on the same input. No device can produce more light than there already is.

In fact - intensifiers don't do longer exposures, right? I mean standard ones - based on photo multipliers. That is why there is so much photon noise in intensified image as each photon is represented as a small flash of light. Would we loose anything by doing 30ms exposure?

I guess in wartime conditions - yes, you want the best interaction with environment as possible - but for astronomy? I don't think most people would mind even 100-200ms exposures, it would still be considered real time.

A 219 euro device is no competition for modern white phosphorus devices costing at least 30x more for the bare minimum. Now, if your aim is to see some wild life at night and at relative close proximity, this device (the Omegon) will do. It works with an infrared illuminator, so quite different to the devices used for NV...

14 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

But is it really?

Have you seen this device:

https://www.omegon.eu/digital-night-vision-device/omegon-alpheon-nv-5x40-night-vision-device/p,47286#tab_bar_0_select

Here is a quote from description:

and resolution is quoted to be 640x480 ...

Best night vision device is not one with photo multiplying tube - but rather just the above - good sensor with high QE over the whole spectrum and into IR. High density display with high contrast ratio and clever software in between.

I would not be surprised that 3/4 gen devices use the same approach. I read once that there is bloom suppression in one such device - and I can't help notice that is easily done in software.

In the end - it is just how one optimizes the size and everything is already small enough to pack into eyepiece sized package, but it is still - sensor and display and computer and some optics to make it work nicely together.

NV devices as they are used, do not by themselves stack images. Rather, they enhance in real time. Sure, you have phonetography for NV, but that is just to convey what is seen and it is not the means by which NV is practiced.

Traditional EAA is either say one very long image where photons are stacked over time, or some short images which are stacked. "Traditional" EAA is near real time. NV is real time.

Disclosure: I only do "traditional" EAA. My stacks are in the order of 10 seconds of anything between 10 to 20 frames. Yes, I have a "usable" image to observe in 20 seconds and then it just improves with more stacking. But NV - it is instant, at the eyepiece.

I guess that is the separator - for the time being with current technology - that NV is real time  - 0-100miles in a fraction of a second real time - electronic enhancement at the scope with an eyepiece that includes all electronics Vs traditional EAA which is near real time but not quite there, and employs much additional gear.

Sigh, being admin on CN means that I had to go through recurring bouts of trying to define EAA / EEVA / NV. These were the great EAA wars on CN. What came out of it:

EAA is viewing without an eyepiece, doing any enhancements available in real time and while one is observing (applying calibration frames real time, tweaking software display options, cooling etc). Anything done to the actual image after observing (post processing) is considered imaging. As an avid EAA practitioner, this is how I see EAA. I do both traditional viewing and EAA viewing and I consider them complementary and I also consider myself lucky to have options available.

NV is traditional viewing with an eyepiece, but that eyepiece offers on the fly enhancements. There are no laptops involved, no ASIAir Pros (love mine), no external power packs, no cables, no CMOS or CCD cameras, nothing else except slotting your electronic eyepiece, or doing afocal NV and immediately just observe. It is different enough to EAA to deserve its own classification, as the equipment used is wildly different and techniques used are wildly different.

Feel free to ignore my opinion of course, but I do wonder why so much energy is devoted to define how one observes. There are a host of different opinions, but in the end, as this is a privately owned forum, the admins will decide the direction they wish this place to follow.

I would vote, if a vote was asked for, for a separate NV forum. Why? Observations are conducted differently, equipment discussions are completely different and the end result is quite different too. My 2c

Just some good healthy (need that vitamin D!) fun with the Sun. Two of the photos are over processed to show some features clearer.

Wishing everybody happy holidays

You can get someone to 3D print this for you