On 21/04/2019 at 14:08, Stu said:

I believe the only thing to say to that is....

Aaarrrgggh!

Did it help to get that (those) off your chest, Stu??

Dave

Hi Chris,

I'd say the 4" Vixen takes no more than 10-15minutes, often less (it's not going from a heated room). The Tak takes maybe 20-25minutes, again sometimes less.

The 4" is much more portable, no doubt about it, but not a problem for me as I mainly observe from home (I'm lucky to have Bortle 4 or better skies now). The FS128 is a MUCH bigger tube than the Vixen..

Dave

This is of course a personal, very subjective choice for all us, and my own choice was thus limited to refractors or Maks, as I just don't like reflectors or SCTs.

So my choice would be a 5" refractor or a 6" Russian Mak.

I've owned a 5" F15 US D&G achromat, a Japanese Tak FS128 and Lomo, Ylena and Intes 150mm Maks..all superb in their own ways.

I totally get the affection for premium 4" refractors, and share that, having owned several (still have one), but for me, a 5" just goes that bit deeper.

My current FS128 does all I want it to, is quite lightweight for a 5", and may very well become my only scope in retirement. And that will be just fine with me!

Dave

Hi Geoff,

To be honest I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I would strongly advise you to try out a pair first, if that is practicable for you..

Can you use binoculars successfully? If so, I think there is a good chance you could use binoviewers,  it's amazing how the brain can compensate to some degree for faults.

My right eye is my "natural" viewing eye, but in the last couple of years I've noticed that my left is more acute (can see fainter objects better), and definitely sharper than my right. I've been able to gradually train myself to use my left eye for Cyclops viewing as the default eye. 

With binoviewing, I definitely find on many (not all) objects that two eyes are better than one, and the "good" eye seems to pull up the "bad" eye, not the other way around.

I hope that is of some help Geoff, but I do think that "try before you buy" is important before you invest your cash..

Dave?

"And I thought the 20mm XW was better all round than the 22 LVW, which just goes to show what a weird bunch we all are."

Couldnt agree more Mike.. as they say over the Pond, "Your mileage may vary".

The great thing here on SGL though is that we can have sincere and strongly held opinions on kit but still fully respect each other's views (literally ?!). The eyepiece that gives you the view that you like most is the best eyepiece for you?.

I have to agree about the 17.5mm Morpheus though Mike. What a lovely eyepiece.

Back on thread though, I have never looked through a Pentax 3.5mm or a Delos of any kind..But based on the 5mm XW I owned, I'd expect the XW 3.5mm to be outstanding, and based on general reviews of the Delos range, the same for the 3.5mm Delos too, albeit over 20% more expensive than the XW.

Dave

4 hours ago, John said:

I've used a 30mm XW (long ago) and thought it very nice but I slightly preferred the Nagler 31 too.

I've passed on the 14mm and 20mm XW's in favour of the Delos equivilents mainly because of reports of noticable field curvature in the XW's. Maybe this is overblown though ? - I've not actually tried the 14 and 20 XW's myself to be fair to them.

 

 

I am probably one of those that mentioned not liking the XW 14 and 20mm, John.

Bear in mind I really rate the 5, 7 and 10s very very highly, (never seen a 30mm or 40mm in the flesh, never mind used them?), but I had mint examples of the 14mm and 20mm and thought they were OK, not great like their shorter brethren..But then I compared the 14mm to a Morpheus 14mm and the 20mm to a Vixen LVW 22mm, and I couldn't argue with what I was seeing: the Morph 14 and LVW 22 were clearly, (not slightly) superior to the XWs. In the 14mm the main difference was the Field Curvature, very bad on the XW, and on the XW20 the contrast was significantly better in the LVW 22mm, with also some FC on the XW20 (less than the XW14 though), and negligible visible in the LVW.

Add to the mix the 76 degree fov of the Morpheus, it was an easy decision to keep the Morph and sell the XW14. The LVW22 has a 65 degree fov, so 5 less than the XW20, but it is such a well rounded eyepiece. It is still probably my favourite eyepiece?.

The scope was a Vixen ED103s apo doublet operating at F7.7, and the comparison was made observing M42 over about 4 hours total viewing.

Dave

7 hours ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Better quality glass on the left if you ask me! ?

Shiraz...er, I mean sure is!

Astro Hutech 5mm Ortho.

Looks identical to my Fujiyama 12.5mm pair, and is optically the same as BGO, Fujiyama, Antares HD, University HD orrho etc.

Too short eye relief for binoviewing for my eyes, but great for Cyclops viewing of closer doubles. The narrow 42 degree field may put some off , but IMHO these eyepieces have some of the best scatter control, contrast and sharpness ever seen in mainstream eyepieces.

I will use this with a winged eyeguard which will control stray light and I find helps to make the best use of the short available eye relief.

The last shot includes a rather good Australian Shiraz,  with which a couple of glasses I toasted the arrival of the 5mm today ☺?

Dave

Fascinating stuff?.

Like many, I grew up on The Observers Book of Astronomy and absorbed much of what SPM said in his inimitable style.

To be fair to him, I think he really wanted to steer newbies to astronomy away from some of the truly awful "department store" scopes that sold in their hundreds (and still do!). 

Just look at eBay telescopes. You have to trawl through 100s of cheap and nasty "scopes" before you see a proper one. Now, how many potential amateur observers have had their interest crushed, having bought one of these things and been SO disappointed that they were turned off the hobby for life?

I still do agree that a half decent pair of binoculars is a much better way to start off in the hobby, unless you can afford a decent 70mm or so refractor.

My first scope was a Prinz 100 60mm F15 frac, made in Japan, and it had an inbuilt zoom eyepiece giving 15-60x magnification. It was "ok", not great. But my next Prinz was a 550, again 60mm F15, but this time on a nice equatorial mount, with a good objective, finder and 5 individual eyepieces. It.cost £39.50, which was a weeks' wages for my dad in the early 1970s..My parents paid £20 towards it for Christmas 1972, and I paid the balance over about 9 months from my Saturday job pumping petrol at a Mobil garage (30p an hour!)?.

With this scope I observed most of the objects SPM described in The Observers Book, including my first view of Saturn's rings, M42 and the Trapezium, Mizar etc - from then on I was hooked for life. So, for me, following SPMs advice to "get the best telescope you can afford" did really pay off.

Other factors that have changed beyond recognition, and for the better, since then include:

- eyepieces then were all 0.965" with very narrow fov and mediocre quality for the most part. Nowadays we take high quality 1.25" and 2" oculars for granted, with very well corrected, often very wide fields to boot.

- most starter scopes were small, 60mm F15 refractors, again with a narrow field of view and on rickety mounts and tripods. Chromatic Aberration was the norm, not too bad at F15, but Vega was described as a "bluish-white" star, in the OBA, largely because that is what it looked like in most small scopes (and beautiful it looked too!). Today, 70-80mm apertures are the usual starting point with very good lenses, often with ED glass (unheard of back then), and an almost pure white Vega!

- finally, "useful" aperture. As John says, "whatever that means"... but the context of the time is important to consider as well: no "information superhighway",  no amateur imaging to speak of, few, if any, Damian Peach standard planetary imagers (although quite a few gifted planetary sketchers - our own MikeDnight would have shone in their company)- and still a lot of UK amateurs (including Sir Patrick himself) making real contributions to earth based Lunar studies for example (before the advent of hi resolution space imaging).

Today, despite our high end equipment , few visual observers could claim to be making real, groundbreaking discoveries (possibly excepting Comet hunters), and even the fabulous photo images being taken through relatively small scopes are not likely to lead to many new discoveries not already found by huge ground based observatories and in - orbit automated scopes.

But we have so much to celebrate. In the 60s few of us would ever have dreamed of owning telescopes of the quality that we actually do own, and we have so much great equipment and accessories available to us, with so much useful information at our online fingertips...so we can just indulge and enjoy ourselves..but perhaps none of that would have become a reality in our lifetime without the Sir Patrick's and GED Alcocks of this world blazing the trail for us with their sheer dedication and persistence with the equipment they had available at the time?☺

Dave

19 hours ago, Stu said:

I can add this one on here now, Vixen Sphinx mount, my second now. Nice quick session with it this evening with the Tak, accurate gotos after a very rough setup.

I've never seen a Sphinx mount in the flesh Stu. What are the main differences versus the GPDX?

Is the loading capacity higher?

Do you find the Ali tripod compromises rigidity/stability? It's certainly a nice looking mount☺.

Dave

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Looks good John. Why the change back to an original focuser? You had a Moonlite fitted if I recall correctly?

I must admit, I wondered the same at first..But I have to say, the original single speed Vixen R&P on my ED103s is buttery smooth and I can't imagine needing anything different on the scope. And there is something really nice about using a scope in its' original state - so long as it doesn't compromise its' performance?.

On my wish list for retirement is a task to fettle the big R&P on my FS128..It's had so little use before I bought it (and not that much since, due to work etc etc), that it still feels a little stiff. But I know it can be adjusted to make it freer and smoother, and there are useful threads online to assist☺.

Your Vixen is looking great, John!

Dave

I should have mentioned, the Pulsar F13 I had was a rare Altazimuth mounted scope, it came with a yolk type robust fitting on the tube, very simple but effective. It had really long flexible slow motion controls too.

I removed the yolk mount though and covered the holes left by removing it with black insulation tape. 

Shown here on an old Vixen Super Polaris mount and CG5 tripod..

Dave

On 24/03/2018 at 10:20, chiltonstar said:

I also missed this thread........

Home made OTA using a 102mm f13 Vixen achromat, circa 1980 vintage, on a Vixen mount. Still gives stunning views after 30 years use, and will be out & about for Mars in July!

Chris

 

Lovely setup, Chris!

I owned an F13 Vixen 102mm a few years ago - it was called a "Pulsar". It was actually the only Vixen scope I ever owned that under performed..I actually got the lens tested by Es Reid, who suggested that the outer 10% was the problem (he said it was operating at 1/4 wave at best). On Es' recommendation, I made a mask down to 90mm and it transformed the performance and turned it into an F14.7 90mm. It was always a beautiful scope to look at, and the guy who bought it from me knew about the lens' limitations but was more interested in it as a "statement piece" for his London flat!

Vixen also made an F15 102mm frac, called the Saturn - not many of them about, but apparently totally amazing on double stars, with very little CA.. I once came close to buying one from a guy in Northumberland for £500 complete with a Vixen original full height pier and GP mount - now THAT was a gorgeous looking scope!!

Dave

On 24/03/2018 at 08:34, kerrylewis said:

I seem to have missed this thread to date.

So here’s the big Atlux alongside his little Tak  brother. Mount by Skywatcher! 

Fabulous gun emplacement, er, I mean scope setup Kerry!

I'd love to have a peep through an Atlux - as a much younger man in the 80s I used to drool over them in the catalogues and astro mags, you could buy half a house for the cost of one even then! Thanks for posting 

Dave

On 26/12/2018 at 20:23, thommo10 said:

I have a Vixen Super Polari's mount which carries an Astro systems 150mm Newtonian reflector, I bought them both back in the early eighties, the last time I used them was a couple of years ago, the motors still worked and the scope gave stunning view's, I was wondering about the polar scope because if I remember when you looked through the polar scope the reticule had the year next to it or it was in the manual and as the years went by you had to alter the mount so Polaris was a little bit away from the reticule. My question is can I fit a newer polar scope.

Cheers

Keith

Hi Keith,

To be honest I wouldn't bother..unless you are into Imaging, the manual alignment with the original polar scope will work for years yet.. just get Polaris near the centre of the reticule and it will track well for visual use ?

Dave

On 27/12/2018 at 03:28, Brian Nordstrom said:

Also my Long Perng 110mm f6 APO on my other duel axis driven ( DMD-3 ) Vixen Super Polaris mount , these are just the best small/mid weight mounts out there awesome Japaneese design and engineering .

Once aligned south it tracks for hours without loosing the object , almost perfect .

 

Brian.

Some beautiful Vixen based setups you have there Brian. 

That little Newt looks just so "right" on the Vixen SP, thanks for sharing!

Dave

It's an "Eikow" made scope I think, pretty much the same as a Swift 831, a well regarded old scope. There is a lot of info on the Swift 831 on the net, so do have a delve and digest as much as you can. Here's a link to start you off..

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/578091-swift-831-restoration-advice/

If you scroll down you will see a few photos, the similarity to yours is striking☺.

Dave

27 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

Hello and welcome to SGL

You have a nice classic scope - also branded as Carton.

This is not quite your scope but close......

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/312273-a-classic-hilkin-arrives/

 

That makes a bit more sense now, thanks David. Take a look at this thread on this forum..

New vintage 1960s SYW Yamamoto 60mm F13 refractor

It looks very like the Eikow/Swift design but was made by Yamamoto, who I believe were bought up by one Mr Takahashi at one point.

This one had wonderful optics and went north eventually to be used as a solar scope..I believe the buyer still has it..

Your Hilkin should perform very well..Would be good to see photos☺

Dave

Some pictures would really help☺.

One of the "Old Timers"?

Dave

16 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Must be pretty talented ?

 

Great band, the Winery Dogs..Billy Sheehan on bass, Richie Koetzen on lead guitar and vocals (ex-Poison among others), and Mike Portnoy, drums (ex-Dream Theatre). If you've not heard anything of them and you like rock, have a listen to "Captain Love" on YouTube ???

Dave

My first ever proper Observing Chair - Geoptik Nadira, courtesy of my 2 grown up daughters birthday cash gift?.

Ordered after lunch yesterday, delivered 10am this morning, well done Rother Valley Optics?.

Looks and feels small but solid, hope to give it a quick whirl this evening..

Dave

Stick with Morpheus, you can't go wrong?

Dave

Bortle Class 4 for me..RAF and plane vapour trails can be a pain on some nights though..

Overall, I am thankful for my locations' skies ☺

Dave

My FS128 last night (first clear night for weeks) with Celestron/Baader Binoviewers loaded with a pair of Morpheus 17.5mm and twin microfocusing Baader eyepiece holders. And one with the waxing moon in the background☺.

Dave

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

That is worrying Dave as it looks Green to me...........
It must be the remnants of my Christmas viral infection still having effects

Here's one of the summerhouse...It's painted in exactly the same colour as the house ..convinced now???