Ruud

I feel bitter about this. Is there no limit to these people's stupidity?

I can't say which one is better, but this one appeals to me more. I like the reds better here. The wider framing helps too.

We have a short thread about them here: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/339573-old-zenith-12x50-bins-help-needed/

A C8 is not a bad idea, but as it won't show you wide views you might want to complement it with a small refractor. A 70-80 mm APO would be nice to observe larger targets and scan thousands of pinpoint stars against the Milky way.

Hi Craig, That's a nice shot!

Beautiful! Is that a large white cloud over Libya Montes?

Excellent image, Avani, and a wonderful juxtaposition. Lohrmann must have been a truly patient man and he was obviously a good observer. I think he would approve of this post and be a prouder man for it.

Hi mate, wonderful images!

Checkout Darktable and GIMP for Mac.

A few O-rings around the barrel of the eyepiece will likely solve the problem.

Ooh Ken, that is so beautiful!

Hi Chris, nice images!

Oh yes, a longer eyecup giving tactile feedback would certainly help. It would help you keep your eye still in the right position for all light to get in. A wide pupil also helps. For this reason, eyepieces that have spherical aberration of the exit pupil (SAEP a messy exit pupil like in the kidney bean animation) are generally poor for daytime usage. The larger the exit pupil, the more of a problem SAEP becomes. I have a short focus eyepiece with SAEP (original Nagler 4.8mm) that never causes kidney beaning because its exit pupil is so small.

I believe this battery has total discharge protection. Since that hasn't worked, I'd contact the dealer to find out if you can get a replacement battery. This shouldn't have happened.

The Creaky Blinder did a video on it:

Hyperions are better suited for slow scopes. Not advised for f/5 as said above. They will get further from optimal if you unscrew bits of them or change the spacing of their lenses. GSO plössl 32 mm aren't bad at f/5 with a field of 52°. A used Meade SWA 34mm (68°) or Maxvision 34mm 68° would mean an improvement. They offer more contrast and wider views than the GSO Plössl. Explore Scientific 68° 34mm is essentially the same as the two above and can be bought new. A Televue Panoptic 35mm is more expensive but might be a bit better than the three 34mm eyepieces above but is more expensive. I think you might need a faster telescope than f/5 to notice any difference though.

Congratulations. I'd like a 10 inch dob myself.

Frank is right. Unless the telescope is really small, the atmosphere is the limiting factor for magnification. Small telescopes can generally be used to 2D magnification, maybe a tiny bit more, with D being the diameter of the aperture in mm. This means that a 100 mm aperture is good to 200x and with a 200 mm aperture you might reach 400x with good results if you were lucky with the seeing. For a 300 mm aperture to reach its maximum of 600x with good results though, you'd just about have to take it to a mountain top.

Adan, in case you use a laser collimator, have you checked if it itself is collimated? see here:

Do you have dark skies and lots of money? Are you strong and do you have a trouble free back? I'm thinking of a 10 inch Dob, like this one.

With a smaller exit pupil, blackouts will happen less frequently, but very suddenly. Small exit pupils give you more space available to mover your head around without causing any loss of light, though if you do get a blackout with a small exit pupil, it kind of comes without warning. Yes, for the Moon and brighter planets smaller exit pupils (XPs) are fine (unless the exit pupil gets smaller than 0.5 mm - then the blur from diffraction effects becomes so big than the any advantage of higher magnifications is lost). Deep sky benefits most from mid-sized XPs. For observing in light polluted areas XPs of 5mm or less are recommended. Contrast is better when background isn't too bright. Because of the shadow of the secondary mirror, for reflectors exit pupils ideally should not be bigger than the observer's pupil. (You don't want the secondary's shadow to fill your pupil.) The main advantage of larger XPs is that they come with lower magnification, allowing larger targets to fit in the view. Refractors have no secondary: with a refractor, even when the exit pupil exceeds your own, the image will not dim form that. It just stops getting brighter. But the view gets wider.

The telescope has 1500 mm focal length and the focal ratio is f4.9 If you are young and have very dark skies you may want an exit of up to 7mm. In that case you should not get eyepieces longer than 4.9*7 = 34.3mm Maybe you aren't that young any more and your pupil maxes out at 6 or 5 mm. Light pollution is also a reason not to use too large an exit pupil. To keep the exit pupil under 6mm, you should only get eyepieces with focal lengths up to 4.9*6 = 27.6mm If you want to keep the exit pupil under 5mm, you should limit your eyepieces to focal lengths up to 4.9*5 = 24.5mm Due to atmospheric seeing, magnifications over 300x are rarely useful. But if you use an off-axis aperture mask you will occasionally be able to use 300x. To get 300x you should use an eyepieces of 1500/300 = 5mm. That would be nice for Moon and planets. Magnifications of around 200x can be used on more nights. For 200x you would need an eyepiece of 1500/200 = 7.5mm Again, an off-axis aperture mask will probably benefit the Moon and brighter planets, as reducing the aperture tends to improve the seeing. For deep sky a 2.5 to 3 mm exit pupils are often recommended. Corresponding eyepiece focal lengths are 2.5*4.9 = 12.25mm and 3*4.9 = 14.7mm. For your telescope I would want a set ranging from 5 to 28mm.

Ooh, that's a nice telescope. Congratulations!

Good photos and interesting observations. Thanks!

Oh yes, lovely detail. Perfect picture!