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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_christmas_presents_winners.thumb.jpg.0650e36a94861077374d1ab41812d185.jpg

mikeDnight

Members
  • Content Count

    2,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

mikeDnight last won the day on March 15

mikeDnight had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,274 Excellent

About mikeDnight

  • Rank
    Brown Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Lunar & planetary , binary stars & comets.
    Visual astronomy in general and an advocate of sketching as an aid to observing.
    I also have a passion for refractors and optics in general, and have a deep interest in the history of amateur astronomy, the astronomers and their scopes and observatories.
  • Location
    East Lanc's
  1. I've used many 6" F5/F6 refractors but all have been doublets not quads like the Bresser. The fact that its a quad worries me a little, especially at the low price. Collimation would be more difficult if things went wrong, and if ever used for solar, it would meed a front aperture solar filter or there may be potential damage to the rear elements. As a specialist rich field refractor, a 6" short focus frac is a hard act to follow. Stars are pinpoint and dsos appear bright, high contrast and with high definition. Scopes are very personal things, but for me there's no other scope design that gives rich field views like a 6" short focal length refractor. The two brands that have proved their worth as large aperture RFT's over the years are the SW 150 F5 Star Travel and the 152 F5.9 Star Wave. I'd prefer either over an 8" or even a 10" anything else, other than a larger aperture frac!
  2. I met Jon (parallaxer) at Kettering earlier this year, where he bought his scope. The scope looked delicious, and he said he'd post his views on its performance but as yet he hasn't made any comment as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you should send him a pm to find out how he feels about it?
  3. I bought a Starbeam for my NP101 and loved it! It's very well made, but what I liked most about it was the flip mirror. I could stand at quite a comfortable distance from the mirror and see the red dot set against a star field, enabling me to accurately align the scope with very little effort. I'm even tempted to get one for my 100mm Tak. I eventually sold the scope along with finder to my friend Roger Vine, who produces some excellent scope reviews. You may be able to find a review of the Starbeam!
  4. I've owned one 80ED, one 100ED and three 120ED's. Im purely a visual observer but can tell you with hand on heart the good and the bad about them. First the bad: they are not Takahashi! Next the good, and the best compliment I can pay them: they are very Takahashi like in visual performance. Essentially free of CA, they deliver razor sharp star images and high contrast, high definition views of both lunar and planetary, as well as deep sky objects within their light grasp.
  5. I feel for you Neil! I'm not sure you'll ever reach the end, but you might find your personal comfort zone. In my case I spent years acquiring Naglers & Ethos, Takahashi LE's & Hi LE's, TMB super monocentrics & TMB Planetaries, and of course the superlative Pentax XW's. I was in a happy place! Then some smarty pants introduced me to the benefits of bino viewing and how simple eyepieces easily match and often outperform these more complex and vastly more expensive eyepiece designs. I've now found a new happy place using pseudo Masuyama's such as old Celestron ultima's. I still use wide field eyepieces but they are now the less expensive Morpheus, and high end high power Vixen HR's.
  6. While messing around looking at the Moon last week, I thought I'd take a quick pic using my iPhone just for the fun of it. The night was milky with thin cloud or haze and the seeing just a bit wobbly. I'd wiped my iPhone camera lens on my sleeve, as it tends to gather dust and grease, then hand held the camera over the 25mm Parks Gold eyepiece in my binoviewer. I made three attempts and this was the best of three. Not as sharp as the eyepiece view, but I suppose I'd need to at least clean my camera lens properly for that, or even invest in a dedicated astro camera? £££
  7. Great tinkering Paul. Feel free to continue taking liberties! I'm going to have to get the grit out, coz this could quickly become a slippery slope!!
  8. Thanks to everyone for their encouragement. I may invest in one of those phone holder thingy's just for the fun of it! Thanks for reminding me about Stu's phone image thread Dave, I might try and find it. You never know, I might win a coconut!
  9. Ok, it will probably make seasoned imagers squirm, but I was only playing around. The sky was milky with light cloud and I'd wiped my Apple iPhone camera lens on my sleeve to make sure I got a reasonable result. Then hand holding the phone to the eyepiece of my 100mm F7.4 refractor, I clicked this view. It shows how rubbish I am as I can't even remember the time and date! It was last week sometime, so is that scientific enough?
  10. Truly a fantastic scope, but it does look suspiciously like fungal growth. It's probably been capped while dewed and left for some time, perhaps outside in an observatory. A good reason to keep refractors in the home!
  11. In my experience, I've never seen any SCT give a true star image. Stars always look like pingpong balls or balls of cotton wool and not true Airy disc's in the SCT's I've used, Maksutov's on the other hand provide sharp star images when they're thermally stable. Often, you'll read claims that the Maksutov is "refractor-like". I've never seen the same claim for Schmidt's! Other than the relatively narrow field of view, I think Mak's are good on virtually every sort of target, lunar, planetary, binary stars and deep sky. They do need a dew shield though! You might find a 150mm F5 - F6 rich field refractor would be a nice addition to your growing arsenal!!
  12. They are all great telescopes! If I were in your happy position, I'd keep the 127 for portability and buy the 180 as an observatory scope, even if I didn't have an observatory.
  13. I've owned and used extensively many of the high end, wide angle eyepieces, and spent thousands on them. All introduced false colour to the image and none had the clarity and transparency of my old pseudo Masuyama super plossl's. I may have lost some negligible apparent field but I've gained eye relief, on axis sharpness and level of transparency that's hard to match in multi element wide angle designs. For lunar & planetary observing in my binoviewer they are truly exquisite! Even on dso's they are a joy to use, although I still use some single wide angle eyepieces on the deep sky.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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