mikeDnight

Along with the three atlases below, I use the laminated lunar charts as shown in Marv's post above, which I acquired many years ago from Peter Grego. I've also got two lunar maps on my observatory wall, the first being a S&T mirror image moon map, and the second, an old vintage moon map by Thomas Gwyn Elger. Then I have a lunar globe and a false colour topographical lunar globe. Two other valuable books are Craters of the Near Side Moon and Features of the Near Side Moon, both by John Moore.

House of Optics (remember them?), very kindly sent me the entire range of XW's bar for the 3.5, which I'd already bought from FLO back in the late 2000's. HoH said I could try them out at my leisure and return any I didn't want. I bought them all with the exception of the 30mm & 40mm. At the time I had Naglers galore, but the XW's had a clarity about them that just appealed to me and that I prefered over the Naglers. I've never really been won over by any 40mm eyepiece as of yet. The sky background has always been too bright for my liking. When it came to the 30mm XW, well this was a very close call. Comparing the 30mm XW with my 31mm Nagler over several nights, I finally decided the 31mm Nagler gave the better over all view of star fields. The 30mm XW just missed being as sharp towards the edge of the field. I really would have preferred the 30XW as it would have satisfied my OCD, but the difference in image was the deciding factor. However, if it was down to cost and if I hadn't already owned the 31 Nagler, I'd have been extremely happy with the 30mm XW. I wouldnt buy the 31Nagler at its new price over the 30mm XW, but there was a difference to my eye.

Probably the best 4" refractor in the world!

The Pentax 10mm XW or the 9mm Baader Morpheus would be my choice.

It's funny how we all differ regarding our preferences. I had a terrible experience trying to observe with the monstrously recessed 30mm Tak LE and couldn't wait to get rid of it. I find recessed eyepieces very uncomfortable and having to keep my eye tight against the barrel, so as to see the full field, straining to say the least. I've not used the TV 32mm plossl, but find the Meade 32mm Japanese smoothy and other such designs like the 30 and 35mm Ultima's, Eudiascopics etc are an absolute joy to use. The eyepiece almost disappears as the star field appears suspended above the eye lens. Awesome!

Well Roger, you could follow the DZ with a DF or DC and a DL, so you can then do a full and intensive side by side comparison. That will keep us all amused for a while. It's only money after all!

Excellent sketches Mike!

Sometimes it's nice to reevaluate some of the simpler designs of eyepiece. I'm a massive fan of the humble plossl/super plossl eyepiece, and find that, although subtle, a well made plossl has an clarity and sharpness that can be lost in more complex wide field designs. It's great to read experiences like this, where careful, prolonged comparisons carried out by a careful and honest observer, brings this jewel of an eyepiece back into the lime light.

M31 & M32 are relatively easy, so I'd imagine you saw M32 rather than M110 which is the more difficult of the three. Having said that, all three galaxies are within the grasp of a 70mm scope, but wide field instruments and low to medium magnifications work best. Often, a medium power wide field eyepiece will give a more contrasty view because the sky background becomes darker with increased power. But too much power will kill it! Binoculars or rich field telescopes give the best view of the Andromeda trio. M33 on the other hand is large and face on, which makes it a difficult target in less than dark transparent skies as we're looking through the galaxy rather than at it edge on. Large scopes will show it well, but in a 70mm you're going to struggle with M33 on all but the best nights. Below is a field sketch through a 128mm refractor of M31 centre, M32 lower right & M110 top. M110 is by far the more difficult of the three but still within reach of a 70mm. Below is a sketch of M33 as seen through a 100mm refractor on a night of good seeing. (Bortle 6ish)

I've never looked through a Borg 77EDll or a 61 Sharpstar EDPH, but I've certainly noticed tonal differences in the numerous refractors I've used over the years. Glass types and focal length do play at least some part it seems. As an example, a 150mm F8 SW achromat will show Saturn to be yellow, where as a Vixen FL 102 will show it as a almost white/yellow. I suppose in the case of a short achromat such as the SW, not all colours are in play equally at the point of focus, but in an ED or apochromat they are, and produce a truer, cooler view. Looking through a 150 F8 achro alongside a 125mm uncoated F11 achromat some years ago, the F11 gave a far purer, better defined view of Jupiter. With regard to ED's and apo's, I found my TV NP101 was warmer and softer than my Tak FS128. To my eye the FS128 F8.1 gave an ice cool piercingly sharp view. My SW Equinox 120 was similarly very Tak like giving a cool contrasty view. In contrast, my Tak FC100DC F7.4 has a slightly warmer tone but with an unusual vibrance that I've not seen in other warm toned scopes, and is also piercingly sharp and free of visible CA. I don't use Naglers or for that matter anything Televue, as I'm not a fan of their warm tones. Instead I prefer the cooler Pentax XW's or Baader Morpheus. In a side by side comparison with a Vixen FL102 F9 (cool), the FC100DC (slightly warmer), both gave a stunning highly defined view of jupiter showing equal amounts of fine detail in the form of festoons, white ovals, barges and garlands, all visible with ease. Again in a side by side comparison, both the Tak FC100DC F7.4 and its longer sibling the FC100DL F9, gave equally sharp contrasty views, with the F9 being cooler. I suspect the two scopes use the same eco front crown element to match its fluorite rear element, though it did appear there was a subtle difference in the colour of optical coatings. Ultimately, I suppose if the optics are well figured and performance is high end, the rest just boils down to preference.

At around 3.8 arc seconds and a phase of 98% Mars should be fun. Its northern hemisphere is tilted toward us by nearly 20°, so with steady seeing, a sharp scope and keen eyesight, a north polar cap and the dark feature of Acidalia may possibly be detected. By comparison, Mercury is enormous at 7.7 seconds of arc. It's entirely possible to make out some albedo features on Mercury, so definitely worth taking a look and even making a sketch or image.

Nice sketch Marios. I know mercury is only a dot compared to the Sun but its still a beautiful event worth watching and recording. I managed a brief glimpse for a few minutes following second contact, but the galeforce winds and horizontal hail hindered the view. I tried sketching the view in the hope of catching some granulation on the Sun in white light, but the scope was bouncing like a tuning fork. My sketch isn't worth posting!

I did exactly the same John. After buying my NP101 in 2007/2008 along with pretty much every Nagler, I found that for me the 11mm was in a bit of a no man's land. It was a nice eyepiece, but the 13mm and 9mm each had a sweet spot.

Hi Nadeem, Sorry to hear about your back problem! I'm assuming you want this scope for visual use as you list your imaging set-up separately? There are a number of shorter/faster ed's in the 100mm range, generally around F7 that you could check out. Is budget going to limit your choice of scope? Also, have you ever used your 80ED visually? A few years ago i bought an 80mm Equinox that blew me away with its stunning lunar and planetary views, so much so Infact that I tended to use it much more often than my Equinox 120ED. Also, have you considered a SW127 Maksutov Cassegrain? Capable yet easily manageable!

It might also be worth checking the objective with a torch at the end of a session. If its totally clear you could cap it safely. If there's any dew, leave it uncapped. Around ten years ago I learned an important lesson. I'd been observing for a few hours with my friend Paul and left my eyepiece box lid very slightly open by about a centimetre. At the end of the session I closed the case and didn't open it again for three or four days. When I did, to my horror I for nd my Naglers, Ethos and Pentax XW's were drenchedas if theyed been in a down pour. Humidity is a real problem at certain times of the year, so it's always worth giving everything a quick once over before packing things away. And I always make sure my cases are fully closed.

It might be an idea to take the scope into the house after observing, and leave it uncapped at both ends over night to allow it to thoroughly dry out.

Hi Paz, Using the Tak 1.25" back can be problematic, in that the compression ring needs to be overtightened to prevent the binoviewer from gradually slipping under its own weight. To overcome the problem I use a Skywatcher 2" to 1.25" low profile adapter in a Takahashi 2" back. It is a brilliant little device that grips the diagonal like a vice, and also allows me to rotate the back end without unscrewing anything. By releasing one of the two locking screws I can move the angle of the binoviewer with ease. The collimation issue you mentioned could simply be the locking screws on the binoviewer pushing the eyepieces slightly off axis. With my binoviewer for example, if I put the locking screws on the outside edge of the eyepiece holders the image will never merge. But if the screws are screwed into the holes between the eyepiece holders, the images merge perfectly. This may be due to less than perfect engineering. Also, I never focus rotating the diopter adjustment. Instead I've wound the diopters close to their inward setting, then after focusing the scope I retract one of the eyepieces until both images are perfectly focused, then lock the retracted eyepiece in position (its only about a millimetre difference). It sounds complex but its really quite simple. Once you've found your perfect setting its probably wise not to allow others to adjust the diopters, as this will throw the whole thing out and it can take a while to re-set it to your own preference. Oh, the little Tak prism is as tough as old boot. Mine has taken a real hammering over the years and is still going strong. ☺

Hi Harry, I'm not sure if the gearing of the Polaris is identical to the Great Polaris, but if it is you could use the Skywatcher dual drives for the EQ5. The SW EQ5 dual drives fit the Great Polaris and drive the mount perfectly. And is vastly cheaper than buying new Vixen drives. Sorry the pic below isn't more detailed but it shows the SW drives on my GP.

Sorry Joe, whatever others may think or say, my view of the moon or planets does not dim by 50% when using a binoviewer as compared to a single eyepiece view at the same magnification. Neither does a mono view appear twice as bright. Even brighter DSO's such as M42 and M13 appear quite spectacular through my cheap binoviewer and nowhere near 50% dimmer than a single eyepiece view. Infact the only reason I don't use my binoviewer more often for DSO viewing is down to positional comfort rather than any dimming of the image. I do acknowledge there is some light loss, but it is truly minimal and not even close to 50%. I am pretty sensitive to very subtle differences in contrast, definition and brightness, so if my brain is deluding me, then it's doing a spectacular job!

You may be better off considering the 18mm Tak LE if you wear glasses. However, if you're using a binoviewer with gpc or barlow, i wouldn't buy Tak eyepieces at all. With a binoviewer with a barlow attached, even a cheap pair of 16.8mm Super Abbe Orthoscopic eyepieces will perform every bit as well as the finest planetary eyepieces available. And they are fine for spectacle wearers too! Another alternative to Takahashi are pseudo masuyama's such as the Japanese made Celestron ultima's, Parks Gold and Orion Ultrascopic's, Baader Eudiascopics and Meade 4000 series among others. These often have better eye relief than some of the Tak eyepieces which can have their eye lenses set deep inside the eyepiece body. They are nolonger in production but do come up second hand quite regularly.

I'd stick with your stock 25mm for now and buy a 17.5mm Baader Morpheus. It is a fantastic eyepiece and it barlows wonderfully, so you'll have a mid range wide field, and with a 2X Delux SW barlow, a good power for globular clusters etc. The Morpheus range of eyepieces are well worth considering as they deliver 70° Pentax XW sharpness without the troublesome kidney bean black out issue. Although the Hyperion zoom is nice, I'd be more inclined to go for the standard Hyperion range. The 24mm is excellent and can match the performance of some of the very best at a much lower price.

Great pics Stu. A tiny piece of history frozen in time! 👍

A memorable event, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. And the Tak survived the pelting of sleet and hail, and was left uncapped over night to dry out. Next time I go on a field trip with Paul, I'm taking a towel! 💧⚡🌀❄🌞

Superb!

He who dares wins, and/or goes to the pub to discuss scientific results. 🍺