mikeDnight

What a wonderful read! It was as if I was with you all the way, even down to the 'time displacement', where two and a half hours feels like 45 minutes, and which is experienced by all those who are meant to be Takahashi owners. I also found pleasure in your appreciation for the old school style, and even the beautiful traditional castings produced by that great company. Four inch refractors dont get better than this, and it seems there's a life-long friendship in the making. Just as a side note, I know a lot of people like the detachable finder and that's fine, but I find that having the finder stalk attached can be beneficial. When the Tube is cradled vertically in my left arm, the finder stalk acts like a secure handle, and just adds some extra security when carrying the scope. Just something to think about! Anyway, I'm confident you'll have many exciting times ahead with your awesome little apo, and see many amazing sights together.

Nice podcast, although with a number of small errors from the presenter's. The FC series all have the same diameter tube; the DF has identical optics as the DC, and it's focuser is green or blue not black. The DL had the black focuser; and all of the new FC's are Steinheil and not Fraunhofer. Other than that it was nice to listen to.

Here are a few old sketches made using the FC100DC. I normally use a binoviewer for planetary, and mono for deep sky sketching with a blackout blanket so as to attain a reasonable level of dark adaption. The sketches represent the detail seen throughout the time of yhe observation, which is usually 10mins for Jupiter, 15mins for Mars, and up to an hour for the deep sky observations. M42 again. M27 M57

I haven't detected any difference between the two as far as transmission goes. Infact Tak's own user manual mentions the bright images produced by Fluorite as being beyond any ED glass, but i suspect they're really talking about the extremes of the spectrum detectable by CCD's. My own site isn't as transparent as it used to be, yet I still had some memorable views when I've managed to attain a high level of dark adaption. The 42mm LVW should be awesome, and the F7.4 will give you a slightly wider field of view, but F8 would have been considered an RFT only a few years ago. Today many think its long! I remember Walter Scott Houston writing about Barnard's loope in the book Deep Sky Wonders. He said the best way to view it was through an Olll filter alone - no telescope! I've never seen it myself and so can't really comment. I could have just saved you a fortune!

It seems the DZ isn't currently unavailable due to supply issues, but the DC and DF can still be found off the shelf. Obviously if your heart is set on a DZ, then that's the one to go for, but i read somewhere recently (possibly on CN), that it could be a year before any become available.

Any! The DC and DF are basically the same but for the focuser. Optically they are vibrant, giving lovely views of the belts of Jupiter and bringing out some glorious star colours. Stu bought a DC and replaced the focuser with a feathertouch, which although expensive, is a great way to go as the optics are awesome. The DC focuser is the same used on the 60mm Tak and youd need a 2" to 1.25" adapter if you want to use 2" eyepieces. The DF has a heftier focuser same as the DZ, and takes 2" straight out of the box. You may decide on the Tak, or More Blue microfocuser, but i manage ok with the standard one even at high power, but im tight! The DZ is beautiful too. It has a retractable dew shield which is a bit of a gimmick really as it only slides about 3", so what's the point? Optically the DZ gives a more icey view which I've been told is similar to the TSA. Tak claim the DZ is a high power telescope, so when mine arrived I managed to push it upto 1000X using a 1.6mm Vixen HR and 2X Ultima SV Barlow. Star images remained unbelievably sharp and perfectly formed, so perfect in fact that I kept checking and rechecking I'd got my calculation right. Both the DC/DF and DZ handle magnification really well. I can't remember pushing my DC, which I bought in March 2015, with the same determination as I did with my DZ, but the DC showed Venus beautifully at 474X, so it was no slouch on the power front. As for CA, I think you've more chance of getting false colour from the eyepieces used, especially if they're wide angle, than from the telescope. So all are fast cooling (15mins from a warm room to sub zero), high power and colour free, with the DC/DF giving a warmer tone, while the DZ is cooler more akin to the DL. Other than that, to my eye they are more similar than different. I have to admit to having a major soft spot for the DC/DF, and wouldn't bother chasing a DZ unless one was within arms reach. Of course there's always the chance a DL or older FS, or earlier FC may come along on the second hand market. The FS is a Fraunhofer design with a thinner fluorite element at the front, where as the FC's use a Steinheil design with a thicker fluorite element behind. Vixen's older FL102 was a Steinheil and is excellent if you can find one.

My mistake! In that case, the Baader Morpheus are excellent. The 17.5mm is wonderful and it barlow really well, so you don't really need to buy the 9mm. Although the 9mm is a great eyepiece too. I believe the 14mm is the weakest of the bunch, and is the only one i haven't owned. Pentax XW's are top class too, but again the 14mm is the least popular due to it being poor around the edge of its field.

Eyepieces can be very personal things, as what suits one may not suit another. Personally I think there's nothing to gain in using wide field eyepieces in a binoviewer. Orthoscopic's and good quality Plossl's are really all you'll need. I haven't used them, but the Starbase orthoscopic's have had some good feed back. And there's a 14mm that may be ideal for your F7 scope. Flo sell them when they are in stock, and they aren't expensive! Others may be Televue Plossl's, Vixen SLV's. Fujiyama orthoscopic's. You could look out for secondhand golden oldies that are no longer in production such as Vixen LV's.

18mm with a 2X Barlow on the nose of your binoviewer will give very nice lunar and planetary views. I think you'll find the 18mm's very comfortable. 10mm may be ok, but could push the comfort zone a little. Also, apart from very few brighter deep sky targets, I find using a single eyepiece in the scope, without binoviewer, works best. So for moon, planets and the Sun, I use my binoviewer, but for deep sky and double stars I use mono viewing.

Why would you need a 45 degree prism? Certainly ot for astronomy!

Hi Gerry, W. F. Denning wrote his book way back in 1891. The lack of reference to women was just the way things were back then and certainly not meant to be discriminatory. Personally I believe, when the term 'man' is used in this context, it can quite legitimately be interpreted as meaning male and female. With regard to the "man of small capacity", that simply points to those who lack the right aptitude, and so the insinuation that not everyone can become a good observer is correct. Lowell, though passionate about astronomy was not a good observer, where as Dawes, who had terrible eyesight was. Though they'll deny it, everyone has the ability to draw, to calculate, to read, but not everyone will be a good artist, or a good mathematician, or a good reader.

If it's the Messier objects you're hoping to see, you might find that shielding your peripheral vision from even slight light intrusion, will help you get maximum dark adaption for your site. Doing this and patiently studying the object will give you the chance to reveal detail you'd otherwise miss. If you can't see the object but you know you're looking at the correct area of sky, maintaining your dark adaption using a dark blanket or hood over your head and eyepiece, then moving the scope just a little while using averted vision, can help you to eventually detect it. You may not need nebula filters at all for the Messiers as they are quite bright in the main, and your 127mm Mak should handle them all.

I'm situated on a north east facing ridge with the top of the ridge and a small woodland blocking my western horizon. There's a river a couple of hundred yards below me and my planetary seeing is generally very good. Deep sky not so good, or at least not as good as it used to be. Perhaps the cooling principle applies in my case, or may be it's just my location that often has a light mist and steady air that aids planetary viewing? I do know that my late friend, who lived quite high up on a hill at the edge of town and higher than me to the south, had terrible seeing, but good transparency, but may be it was the heat from the town itself that played havoc with his site?

They have considerably more CA than a SW 120ED. Having said that, Vixen make excellent optics and so despite the CA, the figure will be top notch and images in focus as good as can be produced by such a scope.

Until next saturday at least!

If you haven't used it for a while, it should be in the same condition that you left it in. Scopes don't normally need much in the way of servicing unless something drastic has happened. What sort of scope do you have and what do you imagine is wrong with it?

I like your sketches Siegfried and I believe they represent genuine cloudtop detail. I really love observing Venus and am generally able to see cloud detail with relative ease. It can be a struggle at the moment as the planet is still relatively small, but as it grows in its apparent size as it moves towards its crescent phase, the subtle detail may become easier to discern. Sometimes I observe the planet in daylight or twilight, which reduces the brilliance and makes detecting the subtle cloud detail easier. Something that may help you in your observation of this difficult planet is to take note of the polar brightness, limb brightness, and particularly any bright spots along the terminator. Sometimes the bright spots appear to bite into the terminator, which indicates a high cloud on the planet. Alongside the bright areas you'll invariably see subtle shading extending in a Y formation along the equator and shading around the bright polar cloud too. I've attached a sketch as seen through a 4" refractor from some time ago just to illustrate, hope you don't mind. ☺

These are great sketches Craig. I love the freeness of your sketching style, as it seems really relaxed as if you're just enjoying the ride, yet the end result has an impact and truthfulness about it. Truly excellent!!

Believe me, you won't be on your own! You never know, you might be the only normal one there!!

The first one I attended at Kettering there was little in the way of deals. You could however play Jenga with the Takahashi display stack on the RotherValley Optics stall. That was fun! I suppose the good thing about it is that you get some hands on with some really nice kit before you decide not to buy. The best bit for me was meeting garryblueboy and JeremyS. That made it worth the 1000 mile drive!!

Oh well. May be noone will be there. That should save me a bob or two!

If you click on the link in the first post, doesn't it show the vendors for the 2023 show?

I love my 25mm Parks Gold for lunar. I really don't think you can go wrong with the longer TV plossl's. 32, 25, 15mm.

I've used a binoviewer since 2008 and consider it the best accessory I've ever bought. In 2015 i bought a 100mm F7.4 refractor and the lunar and planetary views on a good night were simply awesome. I personally think the use of a binoviewer somehow reduces the effects of atmospheric turbulence as well as floaters, though I'm not sure if that's true. The beauty of using a binoviewer of course is that you can use longer focal length eyepieces which adds to your comfort and a more relaxing view, as the eye relief is maintained. A barlow or gpc attached to the nose of a binoviewer allows for higher power viewing while giving a 3D effect, especially on lunar. The added distance between the eyepiece and Barlow increases the amplification by about 4X, so a 25mm pair will give around 120X give or take. An 18mm pair will give 165X etc when a 2X barlow is used. In 2017 a friend came to check out my scope, a Tak FC100DC at the time; he brought with him a 5mm TMB Super Monocentric eyepiece and a Nagler of similar focal length. The night was pristine and the 5mm mono gave a view that appeard to be impossible to out class. I'd have offered him £500 just for that eyepiece if I'd had it lying around as it was so good. Then i removed the mono and replaced it with my cheap binoviewer and a pair of 16.8mm Kson Orthoscopics, equally cheap. You could have knocked me down with a feather as the apparently unsurpassable super mono got its backside kicked by a large margin. I'd been using the binoviewer for close to ten years, but it was only when using a top end eyepiece in the same scope on the same night that it hit home just what a massive game changer the bv actually was, especially when observing the Moon. Floaters are definitely reduced. Perhaps that's because you're using both eyes, and both retinas, effectively doubling the sensitivity to detail and reducing the need to look through a pinhole eyepiece. Instead of only one eye resolving to the limit of a 4", you have both eyes resolving to the limit of a 4" and the effect can be glorious. The brightness does not decrease noticeably as you might imagine it would, at least when it comes to lunar, planetary and some brighter deep sky. Although the light beam is divided in the binoviewer, the combined retina sensitivity and just as importantly, the brain, receives practically all the light/information that enters the prism, so you still get the light grasp and resolution of a 4", only with better definition. At least that's the way I have come to understand it. I don't use expensive eyepieces for bino viewing. Good quality Plossl's or orthoscopics are all you really need, although there are many great eyepieces of other designs too. No need to buy Naglers and the like! The uncapped pairs below are mainly old 5 element pseudo Masuyama's such as Celestron Ultima's, Parks Gold etc 35, 25, 18, 12.5, 10 & 7.5mm, apart from my trusty 16.8mm Kson ortho's. (I rarely ever use the 12.5, 10, & 7.5mm).

It looks pretty good to me, and not an easy target for a first time eyepiece sketch. We're all different in how and what we like to draw, and it will be nice to see how your sketching developes and where it takes you.