mikeDnight

I'll still talk to Stu though as its still a Tak, so that should make him feel better! I can hear him now, thinking "Oh joy"!!

Looks good! How far will you have to walk to the observatory in winter, and don't say the same as in summer? I'm thinking that if you've to walk some distance th tough the snow, you might be put off somewhat. Losing a little horizon may be worth it if you have easier access. Just thinking out loud!

After giving a little thought to acquiring a largish reflector for those Moonless nights where galaxies seem to dominate the scene, my friend Peter who runs the Astronomy Centre a few miles from me, kindly offered me the extended loan of a 250mm F6 Dob to play with. Thanks Peter! Cant wait to play among the galaxies when the clouds allow it! Not sure it will beat my 100mm Tak though!

Personally I'd let the 6" F5 go, as the 120 ED should do everything it can do only sharper with higher contrast and definition, even on deep sky. For a reflector to exceed the 120ED on the Moon & planets it would have to be at least 10" aperture. An 8" reflector definitely isn't enough for me, yet the 120ED is. Weird or what!? And the ED80 would be the jewel of the bunch, which I would probably use more than the others.

I saw two for sale on Amazon in the last week for around £1.50 each plus p&p.

It's an Astro Tech 102mm F6.9 manufactured about 10 years ago I think. Not too certain about the glass types used, but whatever they used they are very good. Paulastro is its current custodian, and I doubt he'll part with it anytime soon. At Kettering a few weeks ago, parallaxer (Jon), bought the more up to date version. It looked top class but everyone's still waiting for his first light report!

Theres also the Sky & Telescope laminated Moon Map that can be bought in standard format or mirror reversed (diagonal view) for use in the field. Its pretty handy and not expensive!

I've got the Times Atlas of the Moon and The 21st Century Atlas of the Moon, plus laminated copies of each of the lunar charts above. Also, Atlas of the Moon by Antonin Rukl (currently out of print and rediculously priced on the second hand market). There is however a smaller version of Rukl's Moon map in the book Moon Mars and Venus, which can be bought quite cheaply second hand on Amazon for just a few pounds. It's a handy pocket sized atlas!

I know who's got that 4" F6.9 frac that you wish you'd never sold Mark, and what a lovely frac it is too! Sorry, I can't help myself. It must be an illness or something!! I'd suggest you could ply him with drink in the hope he'll hand it back, but that might cost more than buying a new one!

Cant wait to see the end result! Get whittling Fozzy!!

An excellent, easy to listen to video Chris. I really can't fault your reasoning in any way and completely agree that if I had either of the scopes you mention, I be a very happy observer. Both scopes are very capable and serious instruments that could provide a lifetime of enjoyment. Of course, I'm of an age where I can remember if someone owned a 4" refractor or a 6" Newtonian, they would be regarded with a measure of awe, and with good reason. After nearly 40 years at the eyepiece I'm still passionate about 4" refractors and rarely imagine using anything else. With regard to Newtonians, I confess to having a soft spot for the 6" F8; and remember Harold Hill mentioning in his book "A Portfolio Of Lunar Drawings", that his 6" Newtonian showed all the same detail on the moon that his 10" F10 did, only not as bright.

Thought I'd add a pic showing the only adaptation I had to make. The cogs on the motors had to be released using the two grub screws and the cogs slid away from the motor body by a couple of millimetres; this allowed full engagement of the worm cog/clutch with the motor cog. However, when sliding the Vixen motor cover back onto the mount, both the motor cog and the worm cog made tight surface contact. My solution was to heat a piece of 22mm copper tubing and melt my way through the plastic cover where the cogs made contact. I used the copper to to enlarge the hole until it was large enough to allow the free movement of the RA cog and worm cog. I then used my pocket knife to debur the build up of plastic that resulted from the hot tube technique. Genius!

The Vixen motors cost more than I wanted to pay John, so I thought I'd try the SW drives. I knew they worked fine on the Vixen mounts so it wasn't much of a gamble, and now I've got the advantage of observing hands free. Ironically, when dismantling the old motor and clutch, i think i discovered what was wrong with the original Vixen RA drive. Still, I've now got dual axis drives!

Not a special addition I'm afraid. The TV stickers come with TV eyepieces as a sweetener to ease the pain of the expense. The scope itself is pretty special though, so don't be too dissappointed.

After suffering a temperamental Vixen RA drive on my Vixen GP for the last four years, I finally decided to replace it. I ordered a EQ5 dual axis motor drive with the new EQ5 hand controller from Rother Valley Optics on Thursday and it arrived by lunchtime on Friday. I installed it straight away but both Friday and Saturday night's were cloudy, so I couldn't give the motors a test drive. Sunday evening was cloudy but there were quite a few large sucker holes to take advantage of. Aiming the scope at the Pleiades and using a 25mm plossl at 30X, I was pleased to see the cluster remained in the field without showing any noticeable drift. Turning to my 3.4mm Vixen HR eyepiece giving 218X, I centred a star and left the mount to track for five minutes or so. I was pleased to see that the star remained bang on centre throughout. Using the hand controller set at 16X, the control of the telescope was precise and the mount responded immediately in whichever direction I moved it. There was no delay in command even at high power! Finally on this first motorized session, I aimed the scope at the double cluster using the 35mm Eudiascopic, but changing to the 17.5mm Morpheus, The deep stellar background not so obvious in the 35mm became very evident. Again the mount tracked flawlessly! I've yet to observe the Moon with this new hand set with its lunar rate option, but if the stellar rate is anything to go by it should be a joy to use. I'm looking forward to some hands free sketching!! Now rather than using the battery pack I'll try and find a transformer for use while in the observatory.

I'm purely visual and can tell you that the Equinox 80ED is a fantastic visual scope. I bought one six or seven years ago and found that i observed more with the 80ED than with my larger Equinox 120ED. I would nip out for a quick 5 minute look in the middle of winter and still find myself observing over an hour later, completely engrossed in the view. With my cheap binoviewer I could easily see five belts on Jupiter, see festoons, the Great Red Spot and follow shadow transits, that appeared as black as Indian ink, as they crossed the disc. The Moon was gorgeous in the Equinox 80ED and any residual CA was kept to an absolute minimum by the superb FPL53 (fluorite glass) element in combination with its Schott counterpart. The focuser tension can be easily adjusted and the fine focus was a joy to use.

Hi Greg, If you're looking for a simple grab and go set-up, an altazimuth mount is probably the way to go. Providing you mount it on a solid tripod or pier it will be steady enough for most purposes even when using high powers, although this is where altazimuth mounts can become a little more difficult to use. Even with manual slow motion controls you'll have to continually adjust both the altitude and azimuth axis, so if you're trying to sketch what you're observing at high power, you can feel like you need three hands. A simple equatorial such as the SW EQ5 is a better option if lunar and planetary observing is your thing, as the mount will track the Moon or planet easily by adjusting just the RA control, with only occasional adjustments of the Dec control. Also, the EQ5 mount can be motorized enabling the mount to track your target, allowing you to observe in comfort. They too are light weight and portable, though the do require a counterweight, so not as light as a AZ4 or giro Altaz. Below are a SW Equinox ED80 and a 100mm apo both mounted on AZ4's making them very portable and easy to use. And the 100mm apo mounted on a portable motor driven equatorial. Also very portable!

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. In fact, I prefered the 20mm XW to my wonderful 20mm Nagler. Both the 20mm Nagler and the 20mm XW gave indescribably fantastic views of M42 in my friends 102 ED and in my 100mm Tak from a dark site. Truly a 3D impression that ive not yet seen beaten by anything else. Having said that, after playing around with my 17.5mm Morpheus last night, i have very high hopes that it will match, and possibly better the performance of either of the former two eyepieces. The moon was washing out the sky last night, but star fields were still spectacular in the Morpheus, and sharp across the field. And the Morpheus doesn't have stupid undercuts!!! If a 76° field is acceptable to you and you're happy with 1.25" fit eyepieces (though Morpheus have 2"fit option as standard), and you're looking for long eye relief, low distortion, high high high end performance at a fraction of the price of TV or Pentax, then Baader Morpheus have to be a major contender. I wouldn't, or at least very much doubt, I'd ever return to either Pentax or Televue after using the Morpheus.

Just testing to see if you're paying attention Gavin! I have had them all, including the 40mm, 30mm and the 14mm, but 40mm eyepieces have always seemed too sky bright for my liking. The 30mm was a real beaut' but, (and I hope you won't tell anybody else this), I felt my 31mm Nagler just had a fractional advantage at the edge of the field, so I let the 30mm go.I wish I hadn't, as the Pentax gave cooler, whiter star images which I prefer, but I'm a master at making blunders. The 14mm was my least favourite if I'm being honest, as it didn't really fit in with my power range requirements. It also had the poorest edge correction, relatively speaking, of the range, though certainly not bad. My favourites were the 20mm, 10mm, 5mm and 3.5mm, purely because they gave me the range of magnifications I found most useful. The 7mm I called my M13 eyepiece as the globular seemed at its most impressive with that one. I think the Pentax XW series are the best set of eyepieces I've ever owned, so if owning a matching set is important, then I doubt anyone could really fault them. Except me!! By contrast, Naglers for example look great as a matching set, but there can be a big difference in performance and comfort, with some being excellent while others are only fit for door stops. Perhaps that's a bit harsh! The thing that i dislike most about XW's is that they could have been designed to be much slimmer. In the information leaflet that comes with the eyepiece it says "New American Size," which niggles me as it implies they are unnecessarily large. At the moment I'm leaning more towards the Baader Morpheus with its 76° af, slim design and large Pentax style eye lens with no kidney bean effect. Doubt I'd want the set though!

There is of course an easy solution to your mismatch problem! Sell everything and buy the entire set of XW's.

I've not used the 3.5 Delos, but find it hard to imagine that it could ever beat the superlative 3.5mm XW, which is one of the best high power eyepieces ive ever owned. The XW undercut is far less savage than those of Televues, and if any of the other Televue eyepieces i've owned are anything to go by, the XW is likely to give a cooler/purer image. The massive eye lens and long eye relief of the XW makes it a very comfortable eyepiece to use. And they are significantly cheaper!

Top class obs'y Kev!

I had a 2.5mm LV and used it many times to great benefit with my FC100DC Stu. I think its a great eyepiece thats become unfashionable due to its narrow field, but at 296X in the 100mm Tak, it gave a useable image scale and a reasonably sharp view of Mars at only 4.8" arc. A very nice eyepiece IMHO!

I'd need a bigger lens and the help of someone who is an expert in airbrushing!